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.

Ayyy cynicism!

One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.

Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Ayyy cynicism!

One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.

Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.

I think that's something we'll see changed, I can't see "a unit has what comes in the box, no options" going over very well with the fan base nor the playtesters, and arguably goes against the whole "you'll still be able to use all your models" schtick as well.

Man... if things like Havoks are finally good, can we PLEASE have some non-assy models for them?

I'm thinking of starting Death Guard, or something else CSM, but if I have to pair beautiful new Nurgle Marines with those terrible Obliterator models, i'm going to puke.

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

Yeah, that was my favourite bit.

Wow, that CSM thing was useless. What I could glean:
-Sorcs can be taken in some capacity consisting of more than a single model
-There's still a challenge mechanic, or maybe that's just fluff
-reminders about universal mechanics we already know about, in no more detail
-broad enthusiasm which acknowledges some balance issues and then sounds like a shill

ERJAK wrote:


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

+1 to this; here's a dude that just did a ton of work to make things better for all of us, and people are slamming him for basically not breaking his NDA and for some typos that an editorial team should have seen and fixed.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Ayyy cynicism!

One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.

Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.

I think that's something we'll see changed, I can't see "a unit has what comes in the box, no options" going over very well with the fan base nor the playtesters, and arguably goes against the whole "you'll still be able to use all your models" schtick as well.

Yeah they can't not provide rules to begin with for old options. They've committed to doing so, so "Box-only options" won't be a thing.

We *have* seen it recently with GS Cult (among other armies) whereby you could only field 3 Russ variants as the box only has them. So future factions will no doubt be 'box-only options". But try telling everyone their 2 x TWDWBLW Tyrants and Carnifexes aren't legal now. Nope. Not a thing they'll do when trying to move editions.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Man... if things like Havoks are finally good, can we PLEASE have some non-assy models for them?

I'm thinking of starting Death Guard, or something else CSM, but if I have to pair beautiful new Nurgle Marines with those terrible Obliterator models, i'm going to puke.

Worst case scenario, these guys aren't anywhere near as goofy as their paint job suggests, and that's still infinitely less goofy than the GW originals.


http://hitechminiatures.com/morbid-angels/35-28mm-terrorizers-box-3-minis-.html

The fact that it doesn't list every unit in the codex by name obviously means those neglected units are going to suck.

Or that's the history according to Dakka.

It was disappointing not to see any sort of actual meat in the article, but fun to see a guest writer. This guy admitted several issues that CSM have had over the past few years (as in most CSM forces barely had any actual CSM in them), so that is kind of cool. I doubt Cultist Spam is going anywhere though.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Ayyy cynicism!

One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.

Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.

I think that's something we'll see changed, I can't see "a unit has what comes in the box, no options" going over very well with the fan base nor the playtesters, and arguably goes against the whole "you'll still be able to use all your models" schtick as well.

You misunderstand, units have plenty of option, the new dwarfs have more than some 40k armies, they just don't have any you can't use because they aren't in the box.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Ayyy cynicism!

One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.

Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.

But the Kharadron Overlords don't follow that logic. For example, the Gundrstrokk Thunderers (Or how they are called) only come with 1 of every single special weapon in the box but they can be equiped the five with the same weapon per their rules. So basically they can choose between 6 different weapons. If that is not variety for a single unit I don't know what it is!

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/grunstok-thunderers_ENG.pdf

Do it for PETA!!!!

https://regimental-standard.com/2017/02/08/fur-the-emperor/

LMAO!!!!

So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?

The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.

 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

Ah yes I forgot. IF you don't praise everything GW does without any critique don't post. Yes. That's obviously only way to post.

tneva82 wrote:

 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

Ah yes I forgot. IF you don't praise everything GW does without any critique don't post. Yes. That's obviously only way to post.

There is a middle ground between "critique" and "they didn't specifically name check the unit I care about in a few hundred word puff piece, ermagahd, they're gonna suuuck!!"

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
-There's still a challenge mechanic, or maybe that's just fluff

Dunno. That sounded more like description what chaos was before with some self-irony. Funnily enough this part was my favourite piece of entire article as I read it like that which at least gave a chuckle out of it for the irony(we have bravest troops of all with our suicide challenge champions!)

EDIT: You know, being this agressive don't give anything to anyone. Sorry!

 Galas wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Ayyy cynicism!

One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.

Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.

But the Kharadron Overlords don't follow that logic. For example, the Gundrstrokk Thunderers (Or how they are called) only come with 1 of every single special weapon in the box but they can be equiped the five with the same weapon per their rules. So basically they can choose between 6 different weapons. If that is not variety for a single unit I don't know what it is!

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/grunstok-thunderers_ENG.pdf

Yep. GW don't miss out chance on making it expensive to get unit you want.

Also if the new GW is so good and friendly as they pretend last thing they would be doing is kill existing units like that(Especially as it continues to allow ripping money off by forcing players to buy 4 boxes to get 1 unit they want).

Such concentration might become less required though if shooting becomes AOS style. Have HB, autocannon, missile launcher and lascannon? All 4 shoots at different targets. Problem solved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?

The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.

But it DID give something new we hadn't known and gave us good ballmark to start estimating other vehicles. Much more valuable. You don't need to reveal everything to make article worthwhile. It's just a teaser. But something new would be nice.

Chaos article wouldn't even have to show crunch and rules to be interesting. Some description of armies he had played and found enjoying. What he found difficult in playtesting regarding this army etc. That sort of article would make article immediately something players would find useful to read over this standard GW marketing department speech.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?

The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.

By showing the full Gorkanaut statline it confirmed a few things. The big one is that it seems to have confirmed their is no facing mechanic at all int he gamer anymore. It also shows how the degrading stat-lines will look and how they work.

It also re-confirmed the removal of Super Heavy Tank and Gargantuan creature rules in writing. We were only told this in the live Q&A, and since they do not seem to get properly archived they have the potential to get miss quoted at times.

Loving the new Morkanaut! Giving big vehicles and monsters lots of wounds should be a really interesting balancing factor to the game. You'll want to bring anti-infantry weapons as well as anti-tank to reliably deal with threats. No more Str 6 spam! It would take a ton of scatterlasers to take down a Morkanaut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also will be interesting how they play with "Damage" on different models. Imagine the Hellbrute loses BS as it takes damage, possibly gaining Attacks as it becomes enraged. They can do all sorts of different things to represent durability differently. Venerable dreadnoughts and landraiders and such will most likely a more favorable Damage progression on the chart.

Yeah, it's definitely possible to get more creative with stat lines based on damage tracks like that- the clix line is pretty neat regarding that.

Just a side note...
the Tyranid Tervigon Brood Progenitor set is no longer avaible...coincidence or change of use?

Aaand the DeathWatch Captain

Seito O wrote:
Just a side note...
the Tyranid Tervigon Brood Progenitor set is no longer avaible...coincidence or change of use?

They are probably going to slowly remove all the Formation bundles on the website.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

Seito O wrote:
Just a side note...
the Tyranid Tervigon Brood Progenitor set is no longer avaible...coincidence or change of use?

They are probably going to slowly remove all the Formation bundles on the website.

Yeah maybe.

Edit was too slow.

The Deathwatch Librarian in Power Armor too

GreenPlum wrote:

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

So, to summarise:

These guys? They're great!
And these guys? They're great, too!
Oh! oh! And these guys here? Yeah, they're great!


On the plus side, if that's as much content as they're going to include in the 'faction focus' articles, now that they've written the first one they can just do a word swap on the unit names for the rest of them.




On the large models... I'm a little torn. I love the idea of degrading models, but this:

Different vehicles will be reduced in effectiveness in different ways too – some will get worse at shooting, some will slow down, and some some will become less effective in melee.

...is going to be a nightmare to keep track of. Could we not just have a standardised formula so that we don't have to refer to the unit card for the entire game?

 insaniak wrote:

So, to summarise:

These guys? They're great!
And these guys? They're great, too!
Oh! oh! And these guys here? Yeah, they're great!

LOL I'm glad I wasn't the only one that noticed. Don't get me wrong, Frankie is entertaining.

I can summarize.

"Chaos. feth Yeah"

 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.

Lol, what a short-sighted opinion.

The ONLY place where positioning might not matter as much is in regards to flamers and blast weapons. On literally every other level positioning will be crucial. Cover will be as important as ever, assault units NEED to be positioned correctly due to the new bonuses for charging, ranged units need to be checkerboarded correctly to avoid getting multi-assaulted with the 3'' consolidate rule.

Only like Tau players would look at these new rules and think that positioning no longer matters... presumably because Tau ignore 75% of the phases in the game.

 Lockark wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?

The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.

By showing the full Gorkanaut statline it confirmed a few things. The big one is that it seems to have confirmed their is no facing mechanic at all int he gamer anymore. It also shows how the degrading stat-lines will look and how they work.

It also re-confirmed the removal of Super Heavy Tank and Gargantuan creature rules in writing. We were only told this in the live Q&A, and since they do not seem to get properly archived they have the potential to get miss quoted at times.

I wouldn't rule out lack of facings yet. There may be a general rule saying "+1 wound form side and rear facings" or "-1 additional rend". They then give bespoken rules to vehicles like Land Raiders and Monoliths that ignore that rule.

In 7th we're people not getting the "oh, you've moved a vehicle? Never mind, here's my insanely fast mid strength high volume shooting unit, or my deep striking multi shot melta unit (or whatever) to simply appear in your rear arc and completely negate your careful "positioning"" that I got a lot of the time?

I don't get how people seem so attached to the mechanic when so much seemed to bypass it at will.

 Lockark wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?

The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.

By showing the full Gorkanaut statline it confirmed a few things. The big one is that it seems to have confirmed their is no facing mechanic at all int he gamer anymore. It also shows how the degrading stat-lines will look and how they work.

It also re-confirmed the removal of Super Heavy Tank and Gargantuan creature rules in writing. We were only told this in the live Q&A, and since they do not seem to get properly archived they have the potential to get miss quoted at times.

I don't think it does confirm there is no facing mechanic, just no facing mechanic on based on the unit

(so no AV14 on the front but AV10 on the rear, but that does not mean there couldn't be a bonus for attacks against the rear of a vehicle in the basic rules)

you may well be right and it's gone totally, but the chance is still there, whether there is or not we'll eventually find out