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.

 blood reaper wrote:
So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.

Not much was invalidated.

 blood reaper wrote:
So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.

I'm not sure in this instance AoS is relivant the legacy armies for whfb were indeed stripped down with some models becoming others. Special items like artefacts scrolls etc were all lost and have just started to be replaced with newer battle tombs. If it's on a sprue as a thing then it will have rules, if it's on a list as a thing probably not.

I still expect to see melta suicide squads being super effective at nuking vehicles, rather than nerf them though I'm hoping the new rules give valid alternatives, such as the humble predator annihilator or the lascannon dev squad.

Sure, the drop pod sternguard/command squad will still wreck vehicles face, but the downside of having the unit be wiped the next turn most likely could be a huge limitation factor now that other options don't suffer from and can equally pump out devastating fire power from a safer position. Also, the possibility that your one shot meltas don't do the job should be a real concern to players who don't bring enough alternative anti armour.

 blood reaper wrote:
So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.

Weapon options for individual troopers never really existed in the same degree as they do in 40K. Regiments could have several weapons options (Orcs with Choppas, Choppas and Shields, Spears, Spears and Shields, or two Choppas) - and those all got carried over.

Things like a Pistolier Sergeant having a Repeater Pistol also got included.

However, in WFB the rules said it was fine to vary the weaponry within a unit for looks as long as it was clear what the predominant weapon in the unit was. AoS adopts a stricter WYSIWYG system. I pretty just ignore that change though.

It is probably just the nostalgia for 2nd Edition that I have, but I'd be OK with The Return of the Datafax, either officially or unofficially.

In AoS they basically have rules for all the weapons options etc that the models come with in the kits, including having rules for visually different standard tops.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.

Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.

Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.

IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.

Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.

And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.

Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.

Not information yet to know if this is true or false.

As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.

Have we had confirmation as to how easy it is to put similar faction allies on the field together? (ie: CSM and Daeomons or SM and IG)

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Is it possible that many of the bespoke rules will just be USRs, but printed out on the actual unit entry rather than in the main book? Like if a unit has Furious Charge, it has what Furious Charge does on its card. But Khorne Berserkers and Death Company or whatever both have the same bespoke rule.

Not likely.

In the community spotlight for the KO the creative process was outlined:

- Create models
- Write rules befitting the models
- Assign points

Basically they don't let anything get in the way of the creative process at any step. We'll see some units with identical rules, but titled for that unit as well as lots of similar rules with tweaks befitting the unit in question.

I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

Hmm not sure that's healthy now it is? We are told that the new rules are more balanced so now a duel between a Dreadnought (or maybe even a Penitent Engine!!) and Wraith Lord may go either way - assuming they are about the same points.

As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing

As a player of the most broken Codex I hope you are not suggesting that this continue - personally I don't want to field my Eldar is such an unbalanced match up - I am sure you feel the same?

Unless of course Eldar Wraith units suddenly become much more expensive to be

vastly superior to other walkers

cos that would be ok too....

Hoepfully all (or at least most) units will be viable and none broken.....

 En Excelsis wrote:

As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.

Seems to me you're objecting to Wraithlords being made fair in comparison to other walkers?

 Lobukia wrote:
Have we had confirmation as to how easy it is to put similar faction allies on the field together? (ie: CSM and Daeomons or SM and IG)

No, but found the sounds of it there will be "grand factions" like AoS. Since Imperium is one expect to be able to take any adeptus, AM, and their ilk in an army, however they will be restricted by keywords so you won't see a sister of battle buffing a space marine necessarily. I do believe Chaos is another so daemons and CSM in an army will be a given. Orks will not have a shared keyword with, say Eldar, so they won't be directly allied in the Xenos group.

 Lobukia wrote:
Have we had confirmation as to how easy it is to put similar faction allies on the field together? (ie: CSM and Daeomons or SM and IG)

Noticed this on Twitter recently:

https://twitter.com/GeekJockPete/status/856951952328011776

Which says to me that it'll probably be easy enough to do that with the armies in the Imperium and Chaos books, but the various races in the Xenos book won't be a 'Grand Alliance' for obvious reasons.

 En Excelsis wrote:


As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.

Is there some reason I'm missing that the wraithlord should be so much better than the dreadnought to never lose the matchup? This kind of comes off as a player saying "my stuff has been op and I want it to continue to be so".

 En Excelsis wrote:
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.

Sure that was good for you, but maybe not so much for the other poor bastard?

pgmason wrote:

Seems to me you're objecting to Wraithlords being made fair in comparison to other walkers?

Are Wraithlords somehow broken? They have 3+ save and 3 wounds and no Inv Save. I've always thought they are easy to drop with heavy weapons, unlike Dreadknight/Riptide etc.

 En Excelsis wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.

Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.

Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.

IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.

Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.

And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.

Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.

Not information yet to know if this is true or false.

As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.

So you're concerned that your special thing is no longer straight up better than other peoples things? What you wrote is basically "I like wraithlords, because they don't have the disadvantage of having armor facings, but instead have high toughness which makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I don't like that other walkers will now also be good."

We have no idea the value of a wraithlord until we see its stats and points cost.

If it is Ws3+, BS 3+, S10, T8, A 5, W10, Sv 3+. And costed reasonably it will still be favorable to a dread based on stats, but the dread won't be trash for this to happen. Basically it devalues the wraithlord because it is no longer 10 times better than the dread, now it is just 1.5 times better and maybe costed to reflect that.

Backfire wrote:

pgmason wrote:

Seems to me you're objecting to Wraithlords being made fair in comparison to other walkers?

Are Wraithlords somehow broken? They have 3+ save and 3 wounds and no Inv Save. I've always thought they are easy to drop with heavy weapons, unlike Dreadknight/Riptide etc.

I think you're missing that he's comparing to walkers, not MC's. I agree that I think the Dreadknight and RIptide are even better still but the statement was that he didn't like the idea of his wraithlord doing worse against dreadnoughts and AV models.

 Mr Morden wrote:

I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

Hmm not sure that's healthy now it is? We are told that the new rules are more balanced so now a duel between a Dreadnought (or maybe even a Penitent Engine!!) and Wraith Lord may go either way - assuming they are about the same points.

As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing

As a player of the most broken Codex I hope you are not suggesting that this continue - personally I don't want to field my Eldar is such an unbalanced match up - I am sure you feel the same?

Unless of course Eldar Wraith units suddenly become much more expensive to be

vastly superior to other walkers

cos that would be ok too....

Hoepfully all (or at least most) units will be viable and none broken.....

Oh indeed, if Dreads are 100 pts and Wrathlords are 300 pts i'd have no issues with them being superior !

so far I'm cautiously optimistic about the shown changes, but reserving judgement for the actual game.

One thing that does puzzle me a bit though is that GW had an opportunity here to create two very distinct games to try and corner as much of the market as possible. 40K could've been a very distinct flavor, with a streamlined yet still technically challenging rule set, something that falls into the 'easy to learn, extremely difficult to master' category. This would've allowed people that want a fast playing, beer and pretzels game to play AoS while those seeking a more tactically deep challenge could've gravitated to 40K, plus you then get the added benefit of being able to cross over to either one if you fancied a walk in the mortal realms or a galaxy torn asunder by war.

But it seems that rather than go that route they've chosen to go to Sigmar in Space. To me, there isn't a real reason to play both (although I know plenty of people will). They're such similar rule sets (based on the leaks we've seen so far) that it's like playing the same game with different skins. Are they exactly the same? No, of course not, but they're similar enough that I don't feel like I'm missing out on AoS since I'm playing 40K.

Maybe I'm wrong and the rest of the changes I'll make it feel different enough to easily be distinguished as its own unique game. I suppose we'll know soon enough.

Just my 2 cents.

On the change from AV12 to T8....

Remember to allow for Dreadnoughts now having a save, even against Lascannons. With one of the pokiest portable weapons in the game only having -3, that 3+ save could be making one hell of a difference to survivability.

Autocannon can currently plink off HP with relative ease. Under 8th Ed, likely not so much as they've never been noted for their armour penetration - just for a decent Strength.

pgmason wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:

As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.

Seems to me you're objecting to Wraithlords being made fair in comparison to other walkers?

Wraithlords are not nearly as powerful as he was making them out to be. Lack of invuln save, meta of grav weapons, costing 55+ more points than a dread with half the attacks.... etc etc etc

 blood reaper wrote:
So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.

They generally have the same options as previously available and at the end of the warscroll section you end up with items like:

For me that meant my two Archmages on Great Eagles actually ended up becoming Wood elf lords on Great eagles.

Did I miss it somehow or has no one posted this yet?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/07/faction-focus-chaos-space-marines/

 matphat wrote:
Did I miss it somehow or has no one posted this yet?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/07/faction-focus-chaos-space-marines/

You missed it.

 matphat wrote:
Did I miss it somehow or has no one posted this yet?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/07/faction-focus-chaos-space-marines/

You missed it (probably because it tells us almost nothing, so there was very little to discuss).

It was posted.. There just isn't anything to really talk about in that article. It basically says Chaos space marines will have units that they have had for many editions and the rules changes might make units you use more effective.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, they've shown off some popular stuff.

Every since AoS introduced debilitating damage, I've had a hankering for the same thing in 40k.

Likewise, but for even longerer, I've wanted the clear disparity between Walkers and Monstrous Creatures attended to - MC were (are, depending on when you read this) objectively better - an Autocannon was a threat to a Dreadnought, but laughed at by the majority of MC who'd just take their save.

Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!

After all chargers go then each player takes turns activating the engaged units that are left to fit. On the first charge this means all of the defending player's units, on turns afterwards this means each player taking turns to choose who fights next.

Yeah nothing really interesting there.
My guess: both Frankie and GW were overcautious when writing that article.

Yeah, I was hoping they would show some stats, but it's just a generic overview and sales pitch.