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.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

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.

In 5th edition I remember how Wraithlords would make short work of Dreads. That's when Dreads had only 2 Attacks base and MC's got 2d6 Armour penetration in EVERY hit. Haven't run the math but gut feeling is now that the matchup is more even, even if in other respects Dread have got more fragile than they were in 5th.

Wasn't Wraithlord originally called "Eldar Dreadnought" and its large head was explained by pilot sitting inside it? I've never had qualms with Wraithlord, if one wants to represent super-hi-tech walker as an MC, Wraithlord is how to do it: High T makes it immune to most small arms and resistant to medium strength weapons, but with just 3 wounds and no Inv save it is not really harder to kill with heavy weapons than a Dread.

It's stuff like Wraithknight which is infuriating to play against - shoot one with everything, and you get 1 wound past its high Toughness, Inv save and FNP. "OK, my Farseer heals that one wound, it's back to full strength again". Le Sigh.

 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 meesaged GW on Facebook a week ago when I started buiding Black Templars and they said any wargear options that are legal will stay legal.

This article sounds very much like it was written by Trump....

New article is up: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

And the new SvT chart:

 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.

I think it'll be good. If a dreadnought and a wraithlord are equally matched (and if their new point cost reflects this) then it'll be good for the game. Also war-walkers might be more fun in the new system.

At the same time, I dont want to see all units become too similar and universal rules take over too much.

One of the reasons I stopped playing warmachine was because I feel they did that too much and it sucked the flavour out of everything.

Split fire on every model confirmed:

Not a problem though, because in the new Warhammer 40,000, models in a squad can fire at different targets. So, this means your Tactical Squad can have your boys with bolters deal with that onrushing Hormagaunt horde, while the flamer bathes a nearby Lictor in prometheum fire, and the squad’s krak missile takes an opportunistic pop-shot at that onrushing Carnifex – just as you always imagined they should!

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.

As a player who has had to face Eldar repeatedly, who have been the most broken faction for 5 of the past 6 editions, who's tactics have mostly relied on stopping other people actually playing the game, I would like nothing more than Eldar to get smacked with the nerf bat so hard that only legend will tell of the time they last saw a Wraith-anything on the table. It would bring tears of sheer joy to my face not to have to read things like "my walkers should be innately superior because they're Eldar", or have people complaining that they might actually lose a unit in a fair fight.

And then I'm reminded that such players are a minority and that it's not the fault of the reasonable that their faction has been poorly balanced, so calm down again. What a silly post though, I mean, come on now, not wanting a rule to change because it stops you being strictly better than equivalent units is ridiculous.

godswildcard wrote: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.

With respect, 40k has never once had a great deal of tactical depth. There's a reason that people focus more on lists than tactics. That's not to say it's devoid of tactics either, as better players with the same list still usually win, but the only "technically challenging" things about the rules as written is trying to remember the thousands of corner cases from the hundreds of pages of (largely redundant) rules. We'll need to wait and see if depth has been added, but they'll struggle to take more away.

 Hragged wrote:

 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:

Spoiler:

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.

I absolutely agree with you on the underlined part. Makes sense. Chaos Marines and Daemons should mix, as should the imperium armies. Dark Eldar and Tau? Not so much.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Where is this 'bespoke' term coming from, I talk pretty good English and I had to look it up.

Are we being deliberately pretentious or something?

I noticed that, too! I will grant that Unit Specific Rules or similar doesn't sound as fancy, but this (and the previous) thread has increased the world wide use of the word by 735%.

Not a problem though, because in the new Warhammer 40,000, models in a squad can fire at different targets. So, this means your Tactical Squad can have your boys with bolters deal with that onrushing Hormagaunt horde, while the flamer bathes a nearby Lictor in prometheum fire, and the squad’s krak missile takes an opportunistic pop-shot at that onrushing Carnifex – just as you always imagined they should!

All sounding quite interesting.

Certainly gives the like of Tactical Squads and their various equivalences more of a role beyond 'sit there, don't die, duck if you have to'.

Though purely from the example above, there's at least the question of whether it weapons that can split, rather than models (so all Bolters have to fire at the same target). Only a question, not a suggestion that is so.

It also makes tanks and Big Bugs far more scary, no?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Not a problem though, because in the new Warhammer 40,000, models in a squad can fire at different targets. So, this means your Tactical Squad can have your boys with bolters deal with that onrushing Hormagaunt horde, while the flamer bathes a nearby Lictor in prometheum fire, and the squad’s krak missile takes an opportunistic pop-shot at that onrushing Carnifex – just as you always imagined they should!

I actually really really like this.

No more sacrificing my tactical's bolter fire because I need the heavy weapons guy shooting at some vehicle.

Just like the article says, gives a lot more utility to your basic infantry, especially tactical squads.

That update sounded pretty good for my IG. Along with the lesser penalty for moving Heavy weapons, every unit gets auto Split Fire, so Heavy Weapon Teams in platoon blobs (assuming they're still organized the same way).

Also there's a lot more room for 3s and 5s and less for 2s and 6s than I anticipated. This means Lascannons only wound T5, 6, and 7 on 3s rather than 2s, and things like lasguns wound T5 on 5s, bolters can wound T7 on 5s, and so on. It's a much simpler chart, yes, but the balance implications will certainly be interesting.

Finally. I've been wanting this change for years.

Tank sponsons and pintles can finally clear away pests while the main gun fires at the big stuff.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All sounding quite interesting.

Certainly gives the like of Tactical Squads and their various equivalences more of a role beyond 'sit there, don't die, duck if you have to'.

Though purely from the example above, there's at least the question of whether it weapons that can split, rather than models (so all Bolters have to fire at the same target). Only a question, not a suggestion that is so.

It also makes tanks and Big Bugs far more scary, no?

Ooh yeah if tanks can fire at multiple targets that really going to deepen the strategic choices you need to make.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
New article is up: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

And the new SvT chart:

So it IS different. This means some of the calculations were bit out of whack - Lascannons wound Vehicles and MC's only on 3+, but Boltguns wound most things on 5+.

Interesting stuff.

I wonder if that sort of Split Fire applies to multiple weapons on the same model (Vehicles, for instance, with both anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry on the same chassis - Tau Hammerheads with SMS and a Railgun, for example).

As for the to-wound roll... An interesting system.

Loses a bit of granularity, but it also allows for theoretically unlimited stats without having a theoretically infinite table, so it makes a great deal of sense.

Weird double post.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All sounding quite interesting.

Certainly gives the like of Tactical Squads and their various equivalences more of a role beyond 'sit there, don't die, duck if you have to'.

Though purely from the example above, there's at least the question of whether it weapons that can split, rather than models (so all Bolters have to fire at the same target). Only a question, not a suggestion that is so.

It also makes tanks and Big Bugs far more scary, no?

That' was my first thought. Heavy weapons in tactical squads will be good again

Huh everyone has split fire now.
I wonder what Longfangs will get then.
The change to the damage table is pretty significant. It's a lot harder to get that 2+ now, as you really have to nuke the target.

The return of tactical squads with heavy weapons is here!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
New article is up: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

And the new SvT chart:

Bizarre.. I guess GW decided that a SIX sided die was too complicated still so now we will only use 3,4 and 5 for most rolls in the game and stats!

The new wound table is a big change that touches a lot of units and changes the statistics of wounding with tons of units. Bolters wound Dreadnaughts on 5+ now and strenght 3 hurts toughness 5 on 5+ too. Plaguemarines and bikes will be less ressistant too. I just hope they will actually give units like Land raider toughness 10 so that the table will come to bear.

If Vehicles can split fire, and I see no real reason they won't be able to*, Predators just got really quite spanky for Maureens. They're often fairly cheap, change to W, and able to dakka up multiple targets a turn....

And potentially come in squadrons still...



Certainly gives them an edge against Vindicators and Whirlwinds.

Also worth noting tomorrow is covering characters so we'll hopefully get all the answers we were looking for there too.

Very exciting stuff!

Oh baby. Salamanders are looking better and better. For sure, every squad will have a Multi-Melta now. Only thing left is to confirm if Vulkan master crafts your Meltas still.

Space Maureen and Chaos Maureen bikers also get a decent boost out of that. Can potentially drive-by Melta a tank or two, whilst the rest of the squad gives some infantry a bit of dakka.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Interesting stuff.

I wonder if that sort of Split Fire applies to multiple weapons on the same model (Vehicles, for instance, with both anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry on the same chassis - Tau Hammerheads with SMS and a Railgun, for example).

One hopes so, as the current Hammerhead setup is idiotic. They could split fire in the old edition if they bought Target Lock, but in their infinite wisdom such abilities were removed in current Codex. I guess they needed to nerf tanks to sell Riptides.

On the other hand, this leaves open the question, what will then separate high-tech or "elite" units from regular line schmocks? Split-fire was one of the rules which allowed to instill 'hi-tech' feel to some armies.

I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.

or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."

Backfire wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Interesting stuff.

I wonder if that sort of Split Fire applies to multiple weapons on the same model (Vehicles, for instance, with both anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry on the same chassis - Tau Hammerheads with SMS and a Railgun, for example).

One hopes so, as the current Hammerhead setup is idiotic. They could split fire in the old edition if they bought Target Lock, but in their infinite wisdom such abilities were removed in current Codex. I guess they needed to nerf tanks to sell Riptides.

On the other hand, this leaves open the question, what will then separate high-tech or "elite" units from regular line schmocks? Split-fire was one of the rules which allowed to instill 'hi-tech' feel to some armies.

Yeah my Deathwing just lost some of it's snowflake status, but I'm sure they'll come up with something to compensate, too many units got their unique capabilities from that rule to be ignored.

 Kirasu wrote:
I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.

or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."

Agreed, it should be declared first hopefully, 2 lascannons at that, rest of the bolters at that, then roll.