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.

 En Excelsis wrote:


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...

How can evidence be provided when we know nothing about the wraithlord at this point? It could have more wounds, move farther, or cost less now. Even its weapon options may have different rend or damage values associated with them to differentiate. Run a maulerfiend for a few games and come back and say that walkers shouldn't get the same treatment wraithlords have had.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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?

No, as they could have a bespoke rules stating that their toughness or save is diminished by 1 if you attack them from the rear. As I said before, there were pretty strong indications that they were removed, but nothing as clear as the last answer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
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.

Indeed. Let's be serious for a second, nobody is exited for more faction focus if they are as shallow as the CSM one

Tanks and monsters don't have facing values, but maybe they will put a rule in the shooting that gives you a bonus for shooting in the back.

Personally, I don't like that kind of thing, because in a game without proper base models specified to every unit, and with free to model your units as you want, conversion works, etc... it can become very tricky.
In other games like Infinity you have facing values because your bases normally are marked properly, so the actual facing of the model is irrelevant. But 40K didn't have that.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:


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...

How can evidence be provided when we know nothing about the wraithlord at this point? It could have more wounds, move farther, or cost less now. Even its weapon options may have different rend or damage values associated with them to differentiate. Run a maulerfiend for a few games and come back and say that walkers shouldn't get the same treatment wraithlords have had.

This is a great point in this argument. Using the single Dread as an example ignores the fact that a Wraithknight mauls specific close combat walkers in close combat, despite having access to shooting (like the dread), and it doesn't really need to give up its CC effectiveness to take guns (unlike a dread). But I mean what is the good balance and fluff argument that a Wraithlord (for equal or less points) should trash things like maulerfiends, Deff Dreads etc. While also being more durable against most shooting, being able to shoot etc. These models that have similar roles should be relatively equal if they are costed relatively equally. It shouldn't be that one is clearly superior to the other. Lets take the wraithlord out of the picture, what about the riptide? It is superior/equal to a dread in CC right now and far better at shooting. There is literally no good argument for being upset that some of your units are slightly worse respective to other units. If you in any way hope (like I do) that all units will be good at their combat role for their points cost.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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?

No, as they could have a bespoke rules stating that their toughness or save is diminished by 1 if you attack them from the rear. As I said before, there were pretty strong indications that they were removed, but nothing as clear as the last answer

Those would be covered under rules for shooting more than the stat lines for the model.

Anyone mind nudging the Q&A about FW's large set of characters? Can we expect to see the Badab War characters (who mostly never got models), the Imperial guard tank characters, or the large number of HH characters who don't have models or were only limited edition?

 Galas wrote:
Tanks and monsters don't have facing values, but maybe they will put a rule in the shooting that gives you a bonus for shooting in the back.

Personally, I don't like that kind of thing, because in a game without proper base models specified to every unit, and with free to model your units as you want, conversion works, etc... it can become very tricky.
In other games like Infinity you have facing values because your bases normally are marked properly, so the actual facing of the model is irrelevant. But 40K didn't have that.

Agreed. With non-standard models it becomes a nightmare and only serves to tell people to not convert or dynamically pose their models.

Could it exist? Yes. Should it? Probably not.

torblind wrote:Wonder what Necrons will get to compensate for gauss now being everywhere. Shred would be nice, Tank Hunter perhaps more fluffy (ie reroll to wounds against vehicles, if there is such a distinction)

I would guess something similar to what some Death units get in AoS. 6s to hit cause mortal wounds.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I'd guess +1 Dam on rolls to wound of 6.

Or that.

In a d6 based game, I don't think I like the 'everything can would anything' approach here.

I didn't have a problem with the "N" designation on the old S vs. T charts...

 EnTyme wrote:

torblind wrote:Wonder what Necrons will get to compensate for gauss now being everywhere. Shred would be nice, Tank Hunter perhaps more fluffy (ie reroll to wounds against vehicles, if there is such a distinction)

I would guess something similar to what some Death units get in AoS. 6s to hit cause mortal wounds.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I'd guess +1 Dam on rolls to wound of 6.

Or that.

Ugh. I'm hoping Mortal Wounds on basic army weapons don't become a thing. *glares at Shuriken weapons*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
In a d6 based game, I don't think I like the 'everything can would anything' approach here.

I didn't have a problem with the "N" designation on the old S vs. T charts...

You can make a chart, but this simplifies the chart down to the same sort of questions we asked to determine what we needed to roll to wound.

 Alpharius wrote:
In a d6 based game, I don't think I like the 'everything can would anything' approach here.

I didn't have a problem with the "N" designation on the old S vs. T charts...

Same, I dislike the lack of variation and decision making that causes. Just more about letting people not worry as much about list building or tactical decisions imo when a bolter has the same probability to NOT wound a cardboard box as it does to wound a battle titan...

 Alpharius wrote:
In a d6 based game, I don't think I like the 'everything can would anything' approach here.

I didn't have a problem with the "N" designation on the old S vs. T charts...

I can see the appeal with that. But the other side of that coin, is that many many units and many many weapons become irrelevant in many battles. With the "everything can wound everything"; many things become viable, and in general, the invulnerable deathstar become less powerfull. And to me is still tactical. Wheres the tactic when you literally can't hurt something? When you can hurt everything but with great difference in value for your shoots, you gain the tactical deep of choosing what to shoot, and when, even if you can hurt anything. If of 3 units you can only hurt 1, then wheres the tactical deep there? You have none. You only shoot the unit you can hurt.

This come to personal preference, and how you value the pros vs the cons of every approach.

This come to personal preference, and how you value the pros vs the cons of every approach.

The problem with deathstars was never about being unable to wound it.. The issue was the saving throws and re-rolls.

 Kirasu wrote:

This come to personal preference, and how you value the pros vs the cons of every approach.

The problem with deathstars was never about being unable to wound it.. The issue was the saving throws and re-rolls.

All add to the problem, really. Personally, in a game that plays in the scale of 40k, I prefer the "everything can hurt everything" approach. The "Oh, your heavy weapons teams are death, you literally can't hurt my tanks/knights with anything you have left. Go home" is a hyperbole, but is a reflection of the gameplay that can evolve with the approach that only X things can hurt Y things. You have many many units/weapons that are useless/redundant.
I value the List-building aspect, but I don't like the hard paper-rock-scissor gameplay, like Warmachines. I like to make my decissions in the actual battle, focusing fire and distributing my weapons to engage the enemy in the most optimal way possible. When you have things that can't literally hurt other things, really the tactical deep is less. You know "I have to face his tank with THIS unit, and only this can hurt it."

That split fire rule can really become handy. I assume that we won't have to fire at the squad we want to charge. So you could theoretically fire your bolters at those firewarriors, your plasmaguns at the crisis suits and then attack those stealth suits nearby. You fired all your shots without having to risk increasing your charge distance.

 Galas wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

This come to personal preference, and how you value the pros vs the cons of every approach.

The problem with deathstars was never about being unable to wound it.. The issue was the saving throws and re-rolls.

All add to the problem, really. Personally, in a game that plays in the scale of 40k, I prefer the "everything can hurt everything" approach. The "Oh, your heavy weapons teams are death, you literally can't hurt my tanks/knights with anything you have left. Go home" is a hyperbole, but is a reflection of the gameplay that can evolve with the approach that only X things can hurt Y things. You have many many units/weapons that are useless/redundant.
I value the List-building aspect, but I don't like the hard paper-rock-scissor gameplay, like Warmachines. I like to make my decissions in the actual battle, focusing fire and distributing my weapons to engage the enemy in the most optimal way possible. When you have things that can't literally hurt other things, really the tactical deep is less. You know "I have to face his tank with THIS unit, and only this can hurt it."

Deathstars are units. Last time I checked not many of those if any had really T7/T8+ so even lasgun could wound those deathstars.

Deathstars are deathstars cause they had tons of wounds, 2+ rerollable, maybe 2++ rerollable, FNP, look out sirs for wounds that hurt characters etc.

Not because lasgun couldn't hurt land raider. Vehicles unsurprisingly were not part of unit.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Anyone mind nudging the Q&A about FW's large set of characters? Can we expect to see the Badab War characters (who mostly never got models), the Imperial guard tank characters, or the large number of HH characters who don't have models or were only limited edition?

I'd suspect that those would come later (if ever) as they're not a priority. To get just the in print models stat'ed out and costed/balanced approrpriately is already enough of an effort in the short term considering the official company line just a week ago was basically "i dunno... maybe... eventually" on getting FW support in the short term for 8th edition. The cynic in me would point out that them promising rules for models they *currently* sell would still be true even if they removed dozens of poorly selling/unpopular characters/models from the storefront just prior to the rules release.

tneva82 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

This come to personal preference, and how you value the pros vs the cons of every approach.

The problem with deathstars was never about being unable to wound it.. The issue was the saving throws and re-rolls.

All add to the problem, really. Personally, in a game that plays in the scale of 40k, I prefer the "everything can hurt everything" approach. The "Oh, your heavy weapons teams are death, you literally can't hurt my tanks/knights with anything you have left. Go home" is a hyperbole, but is a reflection of the gameplay that can evolve with the approach that only X things can hurt Y things. You have many many units/weapons that are useless/redundant.
I value the List-building aspect, but I don't like the hard paper-rock-scissor gameplay, like Warmachines. I like to make my decissions in the actual battle, focusing fire and distributing my weapons to engage the enemy in the most optimal way possible. When you have things that can't literally hurt other things, really the tactical deep is less. You know "I have to face his tank with THIS unit, and only this can hurt it."

Deathstars are units. Last time I checked not many of those if any had really T7/T8+ so even lasgun could wound those deathstars.

Deathstars are deathstars cause they had tons of wounds, 2+ rerollable, maybe 2++ rerollable, FNP, look out sirs for wounds that hurt characters etc.

Not because lasgun couldn't hurt land raider. Vehicles unsurprisingly were not part of unit.

I concede it to you, deathstar where not a problem of things that can't hurt other things.
But you are focusing in the deathstar thing, that is a mere footnote rather than in my argument about why "Everything can hurt everything in different manners" is actually more tactical in the battle and offer more real choices, rather than a hard rock-paper-scissor list-building focused game.

It also feels too abstract and game-y, for an admittedly sci-fantasy unrealistic setting, I know!

 Alpharius wrote:
It also feels too abstract and game-y, for an admittedly sci-fantasy unrealistic setting, I know!

Thats the problem here. People want a game that is not as focus on list-building. People want a more balanced game. But you can't have that with a very realistic game, even in a fantasy setting.
Yeah, Knights should be totally inmune to a horde of grots, orks boyzs with flamers and anti light-infantry weapons. Thats fluffy and is narrative. But is also unfun and unbalanced.
We need to be realistic with what we want about the game, and if the things we like are opposite to the direction we want the game to follow.

My favourite type of games, are the hard-narrative ones, where unbalanced gameplay is a thing, because thats the fun. Where 20 marines face 300 tyranids, where a Giant can just fall on top of your Orc Warboss in the first turn because he is drunk, etc... but all of that is totally impossible to have with a balanced and fun competitive game. And thats is what the mayority of people want 40k to be. Not at the level of Infinity and Warmachine( that are the other opossite, as hard-core competitive games, very game-y) but with a mix of narrative feeling but still fun and competitive game.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:


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...

How can evidence be provided when we know nothing about the wraithlord at this point? It could have more wounds, move farther, or cost less now. Even its weapon options may have different rend or damage values associated with them to differentiate. Run a maulerfiend for a few games and come back and say that walkers shouldn't get the same treatment wraithlords have had.

You (and a few others that have pointed out the same) are absolutely right. I've gotten ahead of myself. I can't say with any certainty that the WL won't have some other changes to compensate for the changes we do know about. I may be pleasantly surprised...

Let's forget about the WL specifically for a moment. As stated, this one thing I see as a flaw could later be mitigated by other rules that make it even more OP. But the reason I think this is a flaw is more than just because it affects one model - in the long run, if WLs do lose enough utility that myself and others stop fielding them, they will be replaced by something - and that something could be War Walkers, which will now be getting the exact same treatment in reverse. They will no longer be AV 10 but probably something like T5 or T6 (depending on how those values stack up against others). One unit exits the stage, another walks on. The difference is that my Eldar army as a whole just effectively lost a possible selection.

Right now there is probably a SM player who really likes his Dreads to configured a specific way. For examples let's say he likes having a power fist and a heavy bolter. Now let's say that a different SM player prefers her dreads to be a ranged support unit and likes to configure them with a missile launcher and an assault cannon. Sounds plausible right? Different players getting a different utility or battlefield function out of the same or similar units? Not outside the realm of reality? Now let's say that GW 'condenses' the rules so that all dreads are static - they all have the same power fist and heavy bolter. Well for the first player this isn't a problem because that's how he likes it. But for player 2 - that model no longer fulfils the rule she needs it to on the table. She is out one model. She may or may not be able to find similar performance from another model in her army list.

Now let's return to that WL again. my own language betrays me here because I have stated previously that I consistently defeat similar models due to it's superiority. The reality here is that the model isn't superior - it was just used correctly. It would be like me saying that I always defeated my enemy's devastator squad by deploying my own squad of Assault Marines. it doesn't mean that assault marines are superior to devastators - they are counter to them. They are designed almost explicitly for that role. They are probably less performant in other areas and can't protect my font line from enemy armor. They are rock to somebody's scissors.

My issue isn't that the WL is not uber cool anymore and can't just wafflestomp my buddy's dreadnaughts, the reason that sucks is because that is exactly what the WL is supposed to do. It was tailored for cracking open hard targets. Like another unit, it fell into the rock-paper-scissors triangle just fine. The paper to its rock was poisoned weapons. DE players just laughed at it - so did SM scouts on occasion.

Now - putting the cart ahead of the horse again - without knowing what positive treatment the WL may or may not get, my concern (as it has been) is that this seems like a reduction in value. I am losing a tank-buster and just getting a tank instead, which my army list already has some of.

I don't know, I mean Iron Devil is a story about a platoon of Guardsmen fighting a Morkanaut. Just because anything can hurt anything it doesn't make it "unfluffy".

We also had an Ork character before 6th canned him who killed a Titan by charging his bike through it's face.

Frankly the new mechanic better supports the lore than the old one did.

I can't help but laugh at this argument regarding the Wraithlord, in 7th it's a horribly inefficient unit for both shooting and CC to the point where the Dreadnaught is actually a better option. And I'm not talking inefficient when compared to Jetbikes but pretty much everything else in the codex as well (and contrary to popular opinion the whole codex wasn't overpowered, just a select few units).

 warboss wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Anyone mind nudging the Q&A about FW's large set of characters? Can we expect to see the Badab War characters (who mostly never got models), the Imperial guard tank characters, or the large number of HH characters who don't have models or were only limited edition?

I'd suspect that those would come later (if ever) as they're not a priority. To get just the in print models stat'ed out and costed/balanced approrpriately is already enough of an effort in the short term considering the official company line just a week ago was basically "i dunno... maybe... eventually" on getting FW support in the short term for 8th edition. The cynic in me would point out that them promising rules for models they *currently* sell would still be true even if they removed dozens of poorly selling/unpopular characters/models from the storefront just prior to the rules release.

They've been saying from day 1 that FW models will be get rules on release of 8th, it' only for the Horus Heresy that it'll be a while before they switch editions.

 Galas wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

I value the List-building aspect, but I don't like the hard paper-rock-scissor gameplay, like Warmachines. I like to make my decissions in the actual battle, focusing fire and distributing my weapons to engage the enemy in the most optimal way possible. When you have things that can't literally hurt other things, really the tactical deep is less. You know "I have to face his tank with THIS unit, and only this can hurt it."

Totally agree with the above.

List building shouldn't be so decisive in game outcome as it is now. When your reaction at deployment when you see models being placed on the table across from you is along the lines of "I can't do anything about that", the game is (imo) broken. Gimmicky lists currently dominate the game. and one way to tone that down is by making all models a bit more relevant.

I'm quite intrigued by the new list building system they've put together - command benefits sound like a fun way to add tactical depth while also balancing the list building shenanigans. Looking forward to hearing more about them.

 Galas wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
It also feels too abstract and game-y, for an admittedly sci-fantasy unrealistic setting, I know!

Yeah, Knights should be totally inmune to a horde of grots, orks boyzs with flamers and anti light-infantry weapons

Should they be? They're not fast enough to stomp out a swarm of goblins that can crawl up the legs and break stuff or suicide themselves on joints.

 Mr Morden wrote:
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

Much excite. Doing this has always been on my shortlist for nifty hobby projects but all of that terrain isn't gonna build itself. glad to hear I won't need to print 25 pages of unit rules to set up a game.

 Galas wrote:
Thats the problem here. People want a game that is not as focus on list-building. People want a more balanced game. But you can't have that with a very realistic game, even in a fantasy setting.

Balance and realism aren't self-excluding if you have game designers who knows their job. GW just doesn't hire those.

If other games can be both logical and realistic AND balanced why not GW...

 Imateria wrote:
I can't help but laugh at this argument regarding the Wraithlord, in 7th it's a horribly inefficient unit for both shooting and CC to the point where the Dreadnaught is actually a better option. And I'm not talking inefficient when compared to Jetbikes but pretty much everything else in the codex as well (and contrary to popular opinion the whole codex wasn't overpowered, just a select few units).

[\quote]

I REALLY shot myself in the foot with my statement about regularly defeating dreadnaughts with my WL. I regret saying it now. the intent of that statement was not to illustrate that WLs were super OP and just laughed at the competition, but to demonstrate how effectively that unit served its dedicated role. I obviously failed to iterate that clearly enough.

Regardless, between the point premium (which was significant) and the inherent weaknesses (poison, instant death, force weapons, etc) that applied to the WLs and not to the dreads, the argument IMO made itself. That utility is gone now and time will tell what if anything replaces it.

On a happier note - while I am still troubled by that model in particular, it does seem to be the only major drawback to the changes that I have read. the rest of the alternations seem to be very positive. I am excited to see the renewed interest in close combat, even if only in emphasis it should be a return to form for more seasoned players. Though I feel like multiple overwatches in a turn, combined with split fire may work against that - we'll see.

tneva82 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Thats the problem here. People want a game that is not as focus on list-building. People want a more balanced game. But you can't have that with a very realistic game, even in a fantasy setting.

Balance and realism aren't self-excluding if you have game designers who knows their job. GW just doesn't hire those.

If other games can be both logical and realistic AND balanced why not GW...

Because those other games have a different mentality, they don't want to offer the ammount of variation that Warhammer games want to offer. If you don't believe me that GW can do it... just look the LOTR system. A realistic, streamlined, and the most balanced system GW has ever done. But is a game with a different mentality, with much less variation and much less "fluffy/fantasy" feeling to it. A logic thing because LOTR is a fantasy setting quasi historical.

And before anyone jump to use the argument... NO, I'm not excusing GW poor poor balance of 40k and Fantasy. I was just talking about the mentality, and what you wan't you games to offer. Don't all the games want to cover the same things to the player. And is important to know what want to achieve a game, or what we want it to achieve.

If people want to have ALL the variation that 40k offer, to be capable of using ALL their armies, being those a full Imperial Knight army or a Full Deathwathc Army or a Full Bike Spam Army or a full Imperial Guard conscript army, etc... you have to put asside many of the more fluffy and realistic aspects of the game, and go with game-y solutions to achieve balance.

And I'll repeat it. In fact, I prefer other games with a more narrative focus, but one has to be realistic with the scale, options, etc... of 40k.

I am really excited for these changes, once again. The new Wound chart seems great. I like the flattening of effectiveness of middle-tier Str 5-7 weapons. Space Marines and even T3 Eldar gain durability against these weapons, but these weapons also gain a slight boost against T8 and T9. Weapon profiles seem to offer some truly interesting variability. I can't wait to start list building.

For that matter, Split Fire offers lots of choices for how you load out your units and how you engage the enemy in shooting. Do you split your heavy weapons up to protect them from attacks - and maybe be more susceptible to the -1 to hit from moving, because you have more models that need to move? Or do you risk your heavy weapon in a dedicated HW team? Do you take a range of weapons for different threats?

Just wanted to also throw my opinion on Galas' side: LotR is one of the most balanced (and fun!) games i've tried.