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.

**Powerfisting**

Mr Morden wrote:
Now that GW have finally managed to start producing card packs for their armies - this should become even easier.

I haven't played a real game since 6th. Since when was this? Is 8th edition going to have a pack of cards I can buy for all of my units in the same vein as Warmachine?

**Mantle**

I'd like to see some deathwatch squads now, so much more flexibility rather than frag Cannon spam.

**labmouse42**

En Excelsis wrote:
That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.

Ah, the old MMO 'but they got a buff' argument. Yes, other MCs got a buff putting them on par with the WL.

The inverse is also true. When a specific unit gets a nerf then all other classes...errr...units get a buff.
WL's got a huge buff because SMC's are said to no longer be completely better in every capacity than WLs. In 7th there was no reason to take a WLs over WKs. WKs were better in every facet imaginable. By SMC's getting a nurf, the WL (indeed, all other MCs and walkers) got a huge buff.

Where's the outrage over that?

**Daedalus81**

En Excelsis wrote:

Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.

For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).

That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.

What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?

So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.

Positive gain - games will be balanced and all units should be useful in their own unique way.

I don't want this to come across as mean, but pull your head out of your own self centered views and take a bigger perspective.

**Mr Morden**

En Excelsis wrote:
Vaktathi 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.
And you've now quite clearly explained exactly why this change is both good and necessary...

Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.

For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).

That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.

What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?

So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.

The positive gain to All players is that if OP units like Wraith Stuff are reudced in strength and other stuff is brought up to their new level in terms of power then balance is better. We have not seen the stats or pts for WraithLords so they may be the same value, better or worse. As I understand it alot of play testing was done by Tournament players and so they should be able to assess the true value / powwer level of a given unit.

Sorry but you are still coming across as "Wow my stuff was awesome but now its not going to be as awesome and people may have stuff as strong as me and thats not fair :( ".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Powerfisting wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Now that GW have finally managed to start producing card packs for their armies - this should become even easier.

I haven't played a real game since 6th. Since when was this? Is 8th edition going to have a pack of cards I can buy for all of my units in the same vein as Warmachine?

So far they have produced several army packs for AOS - one assumes they will do the same for new 40k

**streetsamurai**

v0iddrgn wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
Earth127 wrote:
labmouse42 wrote:

Let's hope that it is the case. But this is the company that gave us scatter laser bikes at a ridiculous low prices, even thought any college kid with even the slightest notions of statistics could realise how op they were

Again though, we have been notified that ALL of the armies are being reworked at the same time. That in conjunction with the changes to the core rules that we have seen lead me to believe abominations like 7th edition Scatbikes will no longer exist.

Yeah, but even if the eldar codex wasn't made at the same time as the other ones, the statistical ridiculousness of the scatter bike was so obvious that I'm not really confident that they won't repeat the same kind of mistakes. And anyways, IIRC, they stated that other codexes will appear afterward,

**AndrewGPaul**

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!

Finally, after twenty years, my Imperial Guard infantry squads with a heavy bolter and a flamer aren't totally ridiculous any more!

**Kanluwen**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Clearly Commisars will be replacing the execution rule wi the power hug rule to make the game more kid friendly.
seriously though, I assume mitigation of battleshock will be common. It's strong when you can't mitigate losses but things like the Mob Rule, Commisars, and Synapse will likely keep things from getting out of hand.

As long as the mitigation can also be mitigated I'll be happy. Less "completely ignore morale rules" in the game the better.

Honestly?
I hope that Commissars just let you get a reroll.

OFFICERS should be the ones letting you ignore Battleshock.

Commisars exist to keep people from running away in fear. Mostly by shooting someone. I rather like the current method, you fail your test and can opt to use the Commisar. Roll a D6 and you choose who dies, on a 1 the opposing player chooses. Hope you didn't need that Lascannon team in your blob.

Commissars exist to maintain order within the ranks and to ensure that the orders an officer issues are completed.

If there's a "Summary Execution" rule, there needs to be a "Fragged" rule too.
Squads that have suffered a casualty from Summary Execution roll a D6, on a roll of a 6 or 1 then the Commissar is fragged by the squad.
I'd take Yarrick if that were the case. Because I would love to see him get fragged by a bunch of Conscripts.

**En Excelsis**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Oh no, to balance the game some units had to get relatively weaker while others got relatively stronger. It's almost like to balance the game changes had to be made in both directions.

Sarcasm aside, this is something we're going to run across in every army: some units will feel weaker while others feel stronger. This is not a bad thing as long as the game is ultimately more balanced as a result.

If the lack of balance was due exclusively to some units being over-powered and others being under-powered than sure, rearranging relative power of individual units would be remedial. Unfortunately that's not the reason the game is out of balance.

Here are the reasons WH40k is out of balance, in no particular order;

Matt Ward (yes, still). Flyers. Giant everything. Enormous mechanical bias in favor of shooting compared to close combat. Formations. Lords of War.

Balance is not the same as equality, it is more akin to equity. Each model needs a value. Not an equal value to some other model, just a value unto itself. There needs to be some reason for a player to want that model or set of models in his/her army. That does not mean that another model has to be sacrificed at the alter. I won't drive this particular point any further since I feel like my case for the WL has already been made in other posts.

More than all this, balance - regardless of how you implement it - always incurs a cost. True balance would almost make my last argument untrue. It would look like equality, where all the models are statistically the same but vary in appearance. Now I don't think that's the sort of balance that anyone really wants because the intangible qualities like character and flavor will always matter, even if people secretly pretend they don't want them. And that character and flavor is precisely the cost we'll have to pay for the sort of balance I see coming.

I just don't know that shorter matches are worth it - I mean, if you don't have a few hours to enjoy your hobby than is it really even your hobby at that point?

**Vaktathi**

En Excelsis wrote:
Vaktathi 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.
And you've now quite clearly explained exactly why this change is both good and necessary...

Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.

You mean, aside from that fact that two units that should ostensibly be of equal power (dreadnoughts and wraithlords, more generally vehicles vs MC's), that both even used to share the same name, will now be roughly equal as opposed to one having a major inherent advantage for no meaningful balance reason?

For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).

That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.

only of you view it as a zero sum game, and even then, thats not a bad thing if they're supposed to be roughly equal and were not. Thats the whole point of balancing stuff.

What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?

So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.

Just because bolters will be able to hurt a Land Raider doesn't mean they'll actually be useful in that role. If it take 500 bolters to kill one, I'm not worried about it. At the same time, a Land Raider isnt goig to die just because a high S weapon glanced it 4 times, it not only has to wound (penetrate under the old AV system) but now the LR gets a save (which it did not before) even if subject to ASM's, and with the new high number of wounds, isn't going to get punked off by a single lucky shot. We'll see if wound #'s balance out vs Damage (e.g. Lascannons D6) and the new to-wound table, that will be the kicker, but overall there are some very real tangible benefits that can be worked out.

**En Excelsis**

Daedalus81 wrote:
En Excelsis wrote:

Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.

For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).

That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.

What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?

So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.

Positive gain - games will be balanced and all units should be useful in their own unique way.

I don't want this to come across as mean, but pull your head out of your own self centered views and take a bigger perspective.

Ugh.

I've played this game for a long time as a reasonably wide selection of factions. I'm not sure my perspective could be any larger than it is. (And I have a huge perspective BTW

)

It seems to be you who has the narrow view - hearing my example of the WL and how I foresee that being a symptom of a much larger problem and assuming that the sum of my statements is nothing more than complaining about one model being reducing in value and utility.

I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.

And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.

I don't want to sound mean but...

**ClockworkZion**

Facebook Q&A dump:

Little Guys update:
Q: Hmm, I've always run my guard squads with lasguns only and kept tthe heavy weapons in seperate heavy weapons squads to not waste shots firing lasguns at tanks and so forth, looks like I might be putting the heavy weapons behind some meatshields, I mean squadmates, again.
A:It's a short but merry* life in the Imperial Guard! Heroism guaranteed**!

*Merriness not confirmed.
** Your experiences may differ.

Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.

Q: Are we getting anymore faction updates? Yesterday's chaos space marines left me hungry for more
A: We we will indeed see more, Astra Militarum next!

Q: I guess with most vehicles having armour saves which won't really be affected by small arms fire, they should survive.
But isn't there a chance that poisened weapons will ignore that table?
Or that someone tripe firing lasguns could easily roll enough 6's to take out a dreadnought in one volley?
A: I mean.... you have to fire a a lot of lasguns to do it! I just had a game at lunchtime today.. a Tactical Squad firing at a Rhinofor three turns barely scratched it....

Q: Woah, does that mean Strength 7 only wounds T4 on a 3+ instead of 2+?
A: That's right. Conversely, S: 4 now wounds anything up to T:7 on just a 5+...

Q: Will FW chapters be in the update?
A: Indeed, yes, FW have committed to getting rules out for all of their Warhammer 40,000 models on launch.

Q: Little guys? Squats confirmed?!?
A: Haha! Not *that* little, I'm afraid!

Q: So a plasmagun wounds a marine on a 3+? Do I get that right?
A: That's right... but now a bolt gun wounds Toughness 7 on a 5+...

Big Models:
Q: The Hivemind thanks you New Games Workshop! Best news yet!
A: Thanks, Hivemind!

Say, what's this bug on the back of my he...... WE LOVE THE HIVEMIND.

Q: Is there any plans for GW to release an easy to use countdown wound counter? It's now usable for AoS and 40k. They could be sold in different sizes for each model level. 0-10, 10-20, 20+
A: We do indeed! Check these out: https://www.games-workshop.com/Citadel-Wound-Trackers

Q: How will that work for Vehicles that had such differences in AV? E.g. a Leman Russ being 14 front 10 rear. Is the squishy rear no longer reflected?
A: Hey Thomas- Tanks have one Toughness value and wound count, just like other large models.

Q: The real question is will I be able to take an army of flayed ones?
A: Absolutely, yes! What a terrifying army that would be...!

Warzone Cadia:
Q: Will there be an article about what is the new situation of Fenris, after the whole war with Magnus, the great losses of Fenrisians lives (due to both Chaos and the Inquisition) and the fact that now they are almost in the middle of the Rift?
A: Hey Giacomo- There very well could be. Keep your eye on this page!

Q: Is there actually anything left of Cadia to reclaim? I thought the planet blew up.
A: Hey Kevin - it didn't blow up as such... there is still a planet left...not much of it, but it still stands!

Q: What will happen with the Apocalypse? Will it be playable in 8th, or will you release a new rulebook?
A: Hey Pablo; great to hear you enjoy Apocalypse! What we know right now is that current expansions and the like will not be compatible with the new edition of the game. We're very early days at the moment, so we haven't released any information about specific rules sets in the new edition. Watch this space on what's coming in the future!

Q: Didn't the planet explode?
A: Hey Richard - the smoking remains of Cadia still stand!

Chaos Marine Focus:
Q: I think we all want to know if the original Traitor Legions will have their specific personality, rules and play styles that were partially restored by the Traitor Legions supplement, or if we will be back to "Generic Chaos" at launch.
A: Hey guys - the Traitor Legions will indeed be getting rules to distinguish them from each other. More news on what that looks like in the future.

Q: It's like christmas in.. May? when is the next faction focus article? Will it be Tyranids? If not, why would you anger the great devourer so?
FUTHER Q IN RESPONSE TO OTHER POSTERS: All they have to say is "you can use something other than flying hive tyrant and have fun"
A: You can indeed use something other than the flying hive tyrant and have an absolute bawl!

EDIT: errr, of course, we mean "ball", of course! There will be no bawling, we promise!

Q: Warhammer 40,000 - its been suggested that I ask if my Imperial Knights will be viable and able to be used in "Matched Play" since implying that I want to be able to do so is not clear enough. Basically I'm not going to play "Open play" and I won't play "narrative play" very often, all I will play 99% of the time is "matched play" as I normally play at tournaments. So again the question is will I be able to use an entire army of imperial knights in matched play? Also since Deathwing was completely screwed in the last Dark Angel Codex, (which invalidated how I used to run them as a pure Deathwing army), can I please ask again, will I be able to dust them off from their 2 year imprisonment in boxes and run them in matched play as a pure Deathwing Army once again?
A: Hey Matt - pretty sure we've answered this elsewhere too... but yes! Knights and Deathwing will be a viable matched play army in the new edition.

Q: Thank goodness for that; I'm getting tired of playing the good guys! I can finally play my Ultramarines the way they were intended Fingers crossed for new CSM models too, or at least a conversion kit for use with Calth and Prospero squads.
A: Are you suggesting the Ultramarines are the bad guys?! I demand satisfaction, sir! *slaps face with glove*

Q: What about the forge world special minotaurs models? Like Asterion Moloc will he have rules?
A: Hey Murray - a good question, sir! Well, Forge World have said that every model we sell right now will be getting rules. Moloc is on sale right now... so look out for new rules for him incoming!

Q: I'd rather know if my full imperial knight army will be able to be used as an army in the new edition without being unbound or if my all Deathwing army will be useable also without being unbound (or without being whatever the new unbound is)...
A: Hey Matt - absolutely,- both Knights and Deathwing will 100% be able to be used in the new edition. No armies are being made obsolete.

Q: Will Chaos Marines finally gain access to drop pods?
A: Hey Lee - that's a great question. On release, we will be covering all of the models we currently see, which means, no, there will not be a Chaos Space Marine Drop Pod. But who knows what the future brings! Keep your eye on this page for all the latest news on releases.

Q: Or you could just release 8th edition already....
A: Hey Andrew - the release date is set, but we thought we would let you guys know what's going on in advance, so you can get prepared for the release. As such, when the new game drops, it's not a huge surprise, or a load of information is having to be taken in at once.

Q: So what about us legions?
A: Hey Nathan; The Traitor Legions will have rules that distinguish themselves from each other, so your identity as a Legion is not lost. More on that coming later!

**rollawaythestone**

In a points based war game power must be determined by cost in a reasonable manner. Otherwise you are just paying to win. If a dreadnought cost 100 points and a Wraithlord cost 125, that wraithlord should be 25 points better. There is a problem though if that Wraithlord is effectively 50-100 points better but costs the same or less as that dreadnought. Things should be costed appropriately, and that might mean increasing the strength of the dreadnought and removing armor facings.

I'm surprised if you will find anyone who will be upset that dreadnoughts are getting better. In fact, I bet Wraithlord will be much more playable in the new edition than they ever were.

**streetsamurai**

So they pretty much confirmed that facings are removed from the game. A shame

**Ratius**

Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.

Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.

**Latro_**

I think the worry some have with the slow down of the game might be yea ye spare 5 bolter shots wont likely hurt that land raider but if you are within 12" and are already firing ye meltagun then why not give it a go.

Extend this to the course of a game with multiple units doing it on both sides over multiple turns that could be a whole lot o chucking dice into the wind hoping for luck because you might as well

**tneva82**

Funny that "I'm dying for more faction focuses". IF you are so eager why wait? Just go to web store and look at bunch of units of faction of your choise. You get 100% same info out of it!

Split fire by model confirmed. Well this has been long pretty much confirmed so today's post basically just removed the off chance it wasn't going to change.

Multiple LOW detachment pretty much quaranteed.

**ClockworkZion**

En Excelsis wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Oh no, to balance the game some units had to get relatively weaker while others got relatively stronger. It's almost like to balance the game changes had to be made in both directions.

Sarcasm aside, this is something we're going to run across in every army: some units will feel weaker while others feel stronger. This is not a bad thing as long as the game is ultimately more balanced as a result.

If the lack of balance was due exclusively to some units being over-powered and others being under-powered than sure, rearranging relative power of individual units would be remedial. Unfortunately that's not the reason the game is out of balance.

No, a lack of unit balance was a large part of why the game was out of balance. You just split hairs here:

En Excelsis wrote:
Here are the reasons WH40k is out of balance, in no particular order;

Matt Ward (yes, still). Flyers. Giant everything. Enormous mechanical bias in favor of shooting compared to close combat. Formations. Lords of War.

Everything you complained about is regarding balance. Game balance in a system that relies on people building a list from different units inevitably gets back to balance between said units. Right now there is no balance. 100 points spent on one squad isn't the same as 100 points spent on another squad, or a tank, or a flyer, or on whatever else you can think of. That is a lack of balance.

So yes, the Wraithlord had to get relatively weaker to make the game better. A lot of things ultimately did. Exorcist Tanks (a go-to Heavy Support option for Sisters) actually got worse at wounding models above T4 but this makes other army selection options more appropriate for use. We may finally see Retributors or Penitent Engines become more popular to use (well maybe the former since the latter is a pain in the throne to build and keep assembled without a soldering iron). This is ultimately not a bad thing, even if it means that something gets weaker.

Guess what else that weakening of a unit can bring? A points cost drop. Which means more options can fit into your list. Again, a good thing.

En Excelsis wrote:
Balance is not the same as equality, it is more akin to equity. Each model needs a value. Not an equal value to some other model, just a value unto itself. There needs to be some reason for a player to want that model or set of models in his/her army. That does not mean that another model has to be sacrificed at the alter. I won't drive this particular point any further since I feel like my case for the WL has already been made in other posts.

More than all this, balance - regardless of how you implement it - always incurs a cost. True balance would almost make my last argument untrue. It would look like equality, where all the models are statistically the same but vary in appearance. Now I don't think that's the sort of balance that anyone really wants because the intangible qualities like character and flavor will always matter, even if people secretly pretend they don't want them. And that character and flavor is precisely the cost we'll have to pay for the sort of balance I see coming.

Relative power for the same points costs is the objective that balance seeks. Shooting that down because it made your favorite model relatively weaker by making choices that were under-powered in comparison better is frankly not an objective argument, but one made solely based on your emotional investment in said unit. Objectively the game gets better when the same points spent in any army can result in the same relative power level even if the models fill different roles in the army.

Complaining that your favorite model should somehow be exempt from this is just supporting a system where balance is thrown out in favor of pushing kits based on sales numbers and not actually trying to make player choice matter.

En Excelsis wrote:
I just don't know that shorter matches are worth it - I mean, if you don't have a few hours to enjoy your hobby than is it really even your hobby at that point?

Why should I need to spend 4 hours playing one game when I can play two in the same time and have time to start a third, or play a Kill Team game?

**Requizen**

Ratius wrote:

Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.

Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.

It works much better in practice than you may think.

**rollawaythestone**

Ratius wrote:

Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.

Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.

Yeah it could. It should be fine if you allocate all your shots before rolling. "10 bolers go into that unit, 2 more and the flamer goes into the other unit"

**tneva82**

Ratius wrote:

Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.

Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.

Not really. Really to go to real micromanagement you need to have as many units in range to equally many units with unit count=# of models in your squad.

SURE if you have say 10 squads of 10 tacticals with bolters all in range of same 10 units you would benefit from splitting fire to 1 model per unit. (And even then this would be suboptimal)

Generally you want to concentrate as that's MUCH more effective than nilly willy casualties here and there approach.

**ClockworkZion**

streetsamurai wrote:
So they pretty much confirmed that facings are removed from the game. A shame

That was confirmed multiple times before too. It's just that people refused to accept it until now.

**streetsamurai**

ClockworkZion wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:
So they pretty much confirmed that facings are removed from the game. A shame

That was confirmed multiple times before too. It's just that people refused to accept it until now.

Not really. They were indications that it was going to be removed, but nothing as clear as the answer in that Q&A

**SarisKhan**

I like the split fire thing a lot. Finally, it might be worth it to put that Dark Lance in a Splinter rifle Kabalite Squad. A hail of anti-infantry fire... and a surprise anti-tank shot! Nothing is wasted. Or the ability to shower one unit with most of the firepower all the while being able to devote one or two guns to finish off that lone soldier next to them. Neat.

**Daedalus81**

En Excelsis wrote:

And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.

I don't want to sound mean but...

That may be because we don't know any stats or points for the WL. You've put the cart before the horse.

**kodos**

Requizen wrote:
Ratius wrote:

Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.

Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.

It works much better in practice than you may think.

if someone know how to speed things up
for other it will be time consuming and slow the game unnecessary down
split by weapon groups would be faster

**ClockworkZion**

streetsamurai wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:
So they pretty much confirmed that facings are removed from the game. A shame

That was confirmed multiple times before too. It's just that people refused to accept it until now.

Not really. They were indications that it was going to be removed, but nothing as clear as the answer in that Q&A

So when they showed the Dreadnought statline, the Morkanaught statline and said that vehicles no longer have armour value facings and share the same statline as everything else it wasn't clear enough?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
En Excelsis wrote:

And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.

I don't want to sound mean but...

That may be because we don't know any stats or points for the WL. You've put the cart before the horse.

I'm willing to bet that the Wraithlord (and many other MCs) will likely see a boost in wounds, a possible points drop and generally will feel more balanced than before. Also I'm willing to bet the WL will be more useful than "T8 fire magnet" like it was in older editions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kodos wrote:
Requizen wrote:
Ratius wrote:

Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.

Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.

It works much better in practice than you may think.

if someone know how to speed things up
for other it will be time consuming and slow the game unnecessary down
split by weapon groups would be faster

Depends on if you have to allocate all shooting at the same time like AoS or not. I've asked on FB for clarification, if I'm lucky I'll get an answer back.

**tneva82**

ClockworkZion wrote:
So when they showed the Dreadnought statline, the Morkanaught statline and said that vehicles no longer have armour value facings and share the same statline as everything else it wasn't clear enough?

There could have been common rule that gives bonus for rewarding positioning by flanking/rearing.

Ah well. Easy to house rule.

**Mr Morden**

En Excelsis wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
En Excelsis wrote:

Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.

For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).

That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.

What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?

So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.

Positive gain - games will be balanced and all units should be useful in their own unique way.

I don't want this to come across as mean, but pull your head out of your own self centered views and take a bigger perspective.

Ugh.

I've played this game for a long time as a reasonably wide selection of factions. I'm not sure my perspective could be any larger than it is. (And I have a huge perspective BTW )

It seems to be you who has the narrow view - hearing my example of the WL and how I foresee that being a symptom of a much larger problem and assuming that the sum of my statements is nothing more than complaining about one model being reducing in value and utility.

I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.

And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.

I don't want to sound mean but...

nope sorry but thats not what happened:

You came into the thread saying that a specific unit and indeed group of units from the strongest codex in the game may not be as good as they were and how this in your opinion was a bad thing. Further you then said how great it was that the chosen unit was undefeated in many encounters with its opposite Imperial number depsite later saying it was a jack of all trades.

Passive Agressive statements aside the only argument you put forward was "some units (mine) are getting worse and thats bad" thats without seeing any stats fro the given unit!

**ClockworkZion**

tneva82 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
So when they showed the Dreadnought statline, the Morkanaught statline and said that vehicles no longer have armour value facings and share the same statline as everything else it wasn't clear enough?

There could have been common rule that gives bonus for rewarding positioning by flanking/rearing.

Ah well. Easy to house rule.

There could be a rule (which would be in the shooting rules), but that has nothing to do with facings having different values like they currently do.

That said, beyond "front" and "rear" there game doesn't really lend well to determining the facings of most models due to differences in poses, shapes of models, ect. Not impossible to have, but it'd be better to run a square base game with all four directions mattering for facing.