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.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Split the attacks between the 2 x 5 units and now both have to take battleshock tests, potentially risking additional casualties to fleeing.
As they are smaller, every loss takes a greater percentage away and also reduces the number of attacks coming from each MSU.

Sheesh that's what I'm talking about. You split in hopes of causing battleshock you REDUCE casualties you cause. Due to the way battleshock works that's GOOD for MSU. MSU player WANTS YOU to do that and every time you do what your opponent wants you to do you should know you are doing something wrong.

LD5. You cause 1 casualty. You cause in average 3.5+1-5=-0.5 casualty. If you had caused 1 casualty more it's 0.5 casualty in average. 3 casualties? 1.5 casualty. Basically every kill means ANOTHER model dying. 2 at the price of 1!

By splitting you have to beat the LD TWICE.

And whether return fire comes from 2 units of 3(after casualties) or 1 unit of 6 is irrelevant. Especially because split fire works for MSU as well! So "greater percentage" is actually irrelevant because number of models left(combined) is what counts.

This is basic math. Why so hard to accept and defend undefendable claim? It's not even like game rules suck if MSU gets benefit from morale rules as hordes get boost elsewhere so even white knights shouldn't have that huge incentive to deny advantage that is so obvious to not make it worth defending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Yea, I guarantee that you guys are missing a big piece of the picture. MSU is not likely to win you games.

Maybe. Maybe not. Apart from deathstars which have been removed from the game with keyword and/or IC removal MSU is what's been winning games for decades.

But you are right it's not everything there is to factor. I'm talking about just survivability where MSU has advantage. That's simple fact. Hordes have advantages elsewhere like h2h and maybe command points. Whether that's enough to break decades old tradition when MSU so far has been getting several big boosts remains to be seen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
There is downside to MSU in that:
Survivability of the individual units
Potentially more battleshock tests (will be mitigated in high Ld units, admittedly)
If they follow AoS unit construction, you don't get as many special weapons unless you invest in fully-stocked squads.
Sure, you may get 1 special weapon but the 10 man squad will get 2 and possibly more.

First isn't all that important. You lose 1 squad, you still have second.

Second is newbie trap for bigger unit player. If he's newbie enough to try to cause more battleshock he's going to lose even more games.

As for third...1 squad with 2, 2 squads with 1. Funny enough both times you have 2. And frankly doubtful they are going to change unit constructions all that much. Tactical squad ain't tossing 3 melta guns any time soon. If anything MSU favours this as you have more veteran sergeants to give combi weapons. This is actually one reason MSU has been used before. MORE special weapons into table than big squads!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?

I mean I can give you a summary:

"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."

Yeah, I'll certainly agree with you here. That "Article" on Chaos was like a Beasts of War summary, and about as useful...

 Azazelx wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?

I mean I can give you a summary:

"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."

Yeah, I'll certainly agree with you here. That "Article" on Chaos was like a Beasts of War summary, and about as useful...

TBF it's not Frankie's fault. If he had given you rules Frankie would be buried in litigation and out of a job.

Sure, and it's not his fault given the constraints he's under, but it doesn't stop it from being essentially pointless. As HBMC said, it amounted to "Everything is going to be awesome? You know how things aren't all awesome now? Well, that will change, because everything will be awesome!"

Oh, and I'm sure Frankie doesn't have the means to publish stuff on WHQ by himself, so there would be no worries about litigation, and he'd only be out of a job if he works for GW...

If we can take any conclusions from AoS, there will be lots of abilities giving "target unit within X" +1 to Y". That balances quite a lot the case between 1x10 and 2x5.

ERJAK wrote:
TBF it's not Frankie's fault. If he had given you rules Frankie would be buried in litigation and out of a job.

Plenty of ways he could have made it more interesting article without divulging rules though(and frankly if GW is showing morkanaut etc stats why not like berserker stats? Not like one unit is big leak even if the rules in the end arent' free). Like comments what was particularly challenging to playtest or some description of armies he playtested etc.

tneva82 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
TBF it's not Frankie's fault. If he had given you rules Frankie would be buried in litigation and out of a job.

Plenty of ways he could have made it more interesting article without divulging rules though(and frankly if GW is showing morkanaut etc stats why not like berserker stats? Not like one unit is big leak even if the rules in the end arent' free). Like comments what was particularly challenging to playtest or some description of armies he playtested etc.

In publishing there are things called editors. Even if he'd added (say) Berserker stats, they would have been removed if GW didn't want them out there. What they're doing is drip-feeding us information at the rate of 1-2 articles a day. It's a clever move, avoids people engaged with their webpage and coming back daily (generally) and prevents people from potentially feeling overwhelmed if they'd dumped a bunch of rules on us all at once - instead there's a snippet and then a day of reflection (and community discussion - look at this thread!) on each daily snippet. With the release around mid-June, we've likely got another month of this, and as long as they continue to have more hits that misses, then I'm ok with it.

Yes! They are right 486 bolter shots to kill a Dorkanaut. Emperor be praised! Could this be the balancing prophecy fulfilled????

@HBMC : THIS WAS AWESOME!
"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."

 Azazelx wrote:

In publishing there are things called editors. Even if he'd added (say) Berserker stats, they would have been removed if GW didn't want them out there. What they're doing is drip-feeding us information at the rate of 1-2 articles a day. It's a clever move, avoids people engaged with their webpage and coming back daily (generally) and prevents people from potentially feeling overwhelmed if they'd dumped a bunch of rules on us all at once - instead there's a snippet and then a day of reflection (and community discussion - look at this thread!) on each daily snippet. With the release around mid-June, we've likely got another month of this, and as long as they continue to have more hits that misses, then I'm ok with it.

There's a fairly wide gap between posting full stats and 'Berzerkers are good. You'll want to use them now! '

Some sort of clues as to how units had been improved would have helped that article considerably, even without actual stats.

In retrospect, the Chaos Marines article has been cleverly written than one might think at first glance:
Its overall layout wasn't neat and its structure was a bit corrupted. It obviously was heavily edited and changed. It was supposed to convey sensations of awesome feelings. Not to mention all the rage and anger it has caused...

But seriously, it was either written under strict guidelines or cut accordingly afterwards. Normal procedure in case of a new product release for a large company. Happens all the time on the so called 'community webpages' maintained by the manufacturer.

Regarding splitfire and multiple enemy units - any mathammer fan should also not forget the case when those units have already suffered some casualties.

If you have, let say, a 10 men or so squad, and there are two enemy units nearby: one with 3 out 5 and the other still in full strength you can obviously risk splitting fire (it does not have to be done evenly, you know) between them. For the smaller one even one casualty reduces combat effectivenes regardless if it causes Ld test or not.

Also Ld tests are done later in the turn, not immediately after this particular shooting and all the models killed before count cumulatively - sometimes it's worth to chip a squad a bit because of possible later casualities.

 insaniak wrote:

Some sort of clues as to how units had been improved would have helped that article considerably, even without actual stats.

That's exactly right. And if GW aren't yet at the point where they were going to allow that level of detail (even without rules) then it renders the article pointless.

It gives you something to talk about.

I think the article was more of a clarification. We knew that heavy weapons can move and shoot and terminators have 2 wounds. The article confirmed that with those changes, the units where that matters the most should be much better.

 Azazelx wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
TBF it's not Frankie's fault. If he had given you rules Frankie would be buried in litigation and out of a job.

Plenty of ways he could have made it more interesting article without divulging rules though(and frankly if GW is showing morkanaut etc stats why not like berserker stats? Not like one unit is big leak even if the rules in the end arent' free). Like comments what was particularly challenging to playtest or some description of armies he playtested etc.

In publishing there are things called editors. Even if he'd added (say) Berserker stats, they would have been removed if GW didn't want them out there. What they're doing is drip-feeding us information at the rate of 1-2 articles a day. It's a clever move, avoids people engaged with their webpage and coming back daily (generally) and prevents people from potentially feeling overwhelmed if they'd dumped a bunch of rules on us all at once - instead there's a snippet and then a day of reflection (and community discussion - look at this thread!) on each daily snippet. With the release around mid-June, we've likely got another month of this, and as long as they continue to have more hits that misses, then I'm ok with it.

Yes but I said that it wouldn't really kill GW to put up one chaos unit stat. It's not like those are super mega hyper secret based on that they have been showing themselves those! Editors can just as easily INSERT those as remove...

And who's saying all at once? As it is that article gave us NOTHING. You could literally go to web store and read same marketing speech from there. Look at the other snippets. Those HAVE given us concrete rules(as it is you could already play simple 8th ed game with what we know...) and actually whetted fans appetite. This article gave _zero_. It's standard marketing speech. Stuff you find on web store.

Driven into battle by the frenzied need to kill, Khorne Berzerkers slaughter everything in their path and leave nothing but twitching corpses in their wake.

In practice they don't get to combat and even if do aren't even that good at it!

But anyway that wasn't even main point but that there would have been tons of ways he could have done that a) provides actually something interesting than copy&paste marketing speech b) doesn't reveal unit stats.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
It gives you something to talk about.

That's not automatically a good thing. It would be far better for everyone to be talking about how they can't wait to get some Berzerkers on the table than for everyone to be taking about how rubbish the article was...

tneva82 wrote:

Yes but I said that it wouldn't really kill GW to put up one chaos unit stat. It's not like those are super mega hyper secret based on that they have been showing themselves those! Editors can just as easily INSERT those as remove...

They decided not to add in a Chaos unit statline in an "opinion" piece. Who gives a feth? Why are you so butthurt about it? We haven't seen any rules for Tau yet. Just relax.

And who's saying all at once? As it is that article gave us NOTHING. You could literally go to web store and read same marketing speech from there. Look at the other snippets. Those HAVE given us concrete rules(as it is you could already play simple 8th ed game with what we know...) and actually whetted fans appetite. This article gave _zero_. It's standard marketing speech. Stuff you find on web store.

I was talking in general terms about lots at once vs drip feed. And I agree that the Chaos article was useless/pointless. I think the difference between us is that I'm happy to poke fun at it once and then forget it exists (aside from using my time to have an important argument on the internet), while you seem a little more intent on raging about it's lack of rules.

But anyway that wasn't even main point but that there would have been tons of ways he could have done that a) provides actually something interesting than copy&paste marketing speech b) doesn't reveal unit stats.

And I do agree that even without rules it could have been better, but we don't know how much it was edited before making it to the web. I appreciate the WH-Q site a lot, but there's a typo in the preamble to the Chaos article, so who know's what the quality of their editors for that site are like?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, despite the little argument/discussion we're all having here, I think we can all agree on "Do it well or don't bother doing it at all." should apply for these articles, and that this one fell short.

Now I'm off to build some Berserkers. For some reason I'm now super-pumped about them. Even if I can't for the life of me figure out why...

tneva82 wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Split the attacks between the 2 x 5 units and now both have to take battleshock tests, potentially risking additional casualties to fleeing.
As they are smaller, every loss takes a greater percentage away and also reduces the number of attacks coming from each MSU.

Sheesh that's what I'm talking about. You split in hopes of causing battleshock you REDUCE casualties you cause. Due to the way battleshock works that's GOOD for MSU. MSU player WANTS YOU to do that and every time you do what your opponent wants you to do you should know you are doing something wrong.

LD5. You cause 1 casualty. You cause in average 3.5+1-5=-0.5 casualty. If you had caused 1 casualty more it's 0.5 casualty in average. 3 casualties? 1.5 casualty. Basically every kill means ANOTHER model dying. 2 at the price of 1!

By splitting you have to beat the LD TWICE.

And whether return fire comes from 2 units of 3(after casualties) or 1 unit of 6 is irrelevant. Especially because split fire works for MSU as well! So "greater percentage" is actually irrelevant because number of models left(combined) is what counts.

This is basic math. Why so hard to accept and defend undefendable claim? It's not even like game rules suck if MSU gets benefit from morale rules as hordes get boost elsewhere so even white knights shouldn't have that huge incentive to deny advantage that is so obvious to not make it worth defending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.

Yea, I guarantee that you guys are missing a big piece of the picture. MSU is not likely to win you games.

Maybe. Maybe not. Apart from deathstars which have been removed from the game with keyword and/or IC removal MSU is what's been winning games for decades.

But you are right it's not everything there is to factor. I'm talking about just survivability where MSU has advantage. That's simple fact. Hordes have advantages elsewhere like h2h and maybe command points. Whether that's enough to break decades old tradition when MSU so far has been getting several big boosts remains to be seen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
There is downside to MSU in that:
Survivability of the individual units
Potentially more battleshock tests (will be mitigated in high Ld units, admittedly)
If they follow AoS unit construction, you don't get as many special weapons unless you invest in fully-stocked squads.
Sure, you may get 1 special weapon but the 10 man squad will get 2 and possibly more.

First isn't all that important. You lose 1 squad, you still have second.

Second is newbie trap for bigger unit player. If he's newbie enough to try to cause more battleshock he's going to lose even more games.

As for third...1 squad with 2, 2 squads with 1. Funny enough both times you have 2. And frankly doubtful they are going to change unit constructions all that much. Tactical squad ain't tossing 3 melta guns any time soon. If anything MSU favours this as you have more veteran sergeants to give combi weapons. This is actually one reason MSU has been used before. MORE special weapons into table than big squads!

MSU is the way to go only for elite shooting units (which to be honest there are a lot in 40K, from tac squads to necron warriors)

For troops you will want bigger units to grab those nice bonuses they will surely get. For example, i'm almost sure that hormagaunts will have +1 attack as long as they are 20+ models in the unit.
You are going to MSU your troops only if you are not interested in them and just have to pay the tax.

For assault units you will want big numbers. They strike as one, easily pile into more units and they have more access to buffs.
This last point is particularly important, larger units conga line better into auras and are better targets for unit wide buffs.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.

But the concepts of small-arms and anti-tank weapons aren't abstract, so even when talking about fictional weaponry it shouldn't be too hard to determine what would be realistic in context/universe.

Exactly. Even a fictional universe should have its internally consistent rules: there is a reason 40k doesn't feature pistols with S10 AP1 72" range. Or Ratling-sized model with S10 T10 8 Wounds, and so on...

 Azazelx wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?

I mean I can give you a summary:

"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."

Yeah, I'll certainly agree with you here. That "Article" on Chaos was like a Beasts of War summary, and about as useful...

Frankie is basically guaranteed to be under NDA and only to be allowed to give the most general of descriptions of stuff that GW hasn't oficially made public yet. The best he can do is acknowledge and highlight units that were bad/underperformed in the past (Abbadon, Havoks, etc.) to imply that the rule writers did pay attention to them and improved them, as well as giving hints which and the most general descriptions of units he thinks will be worthwhile/good now. Add in that he wants to write a fluffy article and you end up with something like that, especially if GW is giving him restrictions (and likely went over it and send it back to him to re-write some stuff where he got too close for comfort) and you end up with something like that.

I don't mind really, it's still additional information and hints and most importantly the faction previews don't replace the daily rule previews/sneak-peaks, and as long as they do not take anything away from those then no harm is done, it's just additional stuff you can read and glimpse some implied changes from.

And that was one article from one guy, let's see what the other playtester guest authors cook up first.

 privateer4hire wrote:
There is downside to MSU in that:
Survivability of the individual units
Potentially more battleshock tests (will be mitigated in high Ld units, admittedly)
If they follow AoS unit construction, you don't get as many special weapons unless you invest in fully-stocked squads.
Sure, you may get 1 special weapon but the 10 man squad will get 2 and possibly more.

Not to mention that equipment like banners might hand out serious bonuses to the whole squad (think 5th edition Grey Hunter Wolf Banner) that would be either too pricy for MSUs or not even available under a certain model size. As well as characters likely handing out single-unit buffs AoS-style that would be wasted for MSUs as well and result in weak synergies.

Not saying that MSUs won't be an option, but they already lost one of their two biggest advantages that made them dominant (forcing units to overkill small units or ignore them and messing with target priority in general by having more units than you can shoot at).

For example: You might have 2 Grey Hunter squads with 2 meltas each facing a close combat dreadnought and two MSU marine squads with plasma. In this edition you will be forced to either shoot both MSUs and ignore the the dread who will then rip a squad apart in CC, shoot the dread and one squad, possibly finishing off neither and leaving the third untouched, or soley focus on taking out the dread with the AT weapons for a guaranteed kill, waste your entire small-arms damage potential and leave your squads open to be plasma'd by the MSUs.
In 8th edition your Meltas and missiles will fire and take out/cripple the dread while your bolters (and any left-over special/heavy weapons from one of the squads if the other one already finished the job fire at and murder one and a half or even both MSUs. Even if the Special weapon guy survives alone he will run off the table on a 4+.

Sure, if scoring units work as they do now MSUs will still give you plenty board control and allow you to spam e.g. Chimeras, but I rather see it as a playstyle choice rather than it being strictly better than bigger units as it is now, especialy with morale buffs for large units/from characters for single units being almost guaranteed. And that's before considering kill-point based victory conditions being a rather likely scenario or taking stuff like Smite (good luck keeping you special weapons around when D3 out of your 5 troopers get mortal-wound instagibbed) or multi shot rend weapons into account.

Someone already mentioned this, but noone commented it. What if the buy in for a unit is actually higher than to just boost the modelcount? Say 5 marines 75 points, but 13 points to add more to this squad? Isn't that the way 30k handles it? I guess I would be fine with this. Counting in some AoS style boosts for to hit or to wound when reaching X models in a unit could be a good balance to the moral system punishing larger units.

Can't say I like the change on the to wound chart but I won't get into this discussion again since I had it with AoS.

Which means I'll jump right into the pudding - do we have any inkling on the book prices yet?

 Crimson Devil wrote:
It gives you something to talk about.

And I got to make a Trump joke, which isn't something I normally do.

 Azazelx wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Yes but I said that it wouldn't really kill GW to put up one chaos unit stat. It's not like those are super mega hyper secret based on that they have been showing themselves those! Editors can just as easily INSERT those as remove...

They decided not to add in a Chaos unit statline in an "opinion" piece. Who gives a feth? Why are you so butthurt about it? We haven't seen any rules for Tau yet. Just relax.

I'm not buthurt. I'm pointing out how USELESS that article was. It archieves nothing. At least positive. Look at the other articles that generate positive hype. Those are the kind of articles they should be releasing IF they want to build up hype and make cash.

This kind of article hurts themselves. And it's so silly they did as they could have done EASILY article that actually generates positive interest. Without even releasing stats.

They didn't even release "opinion" piece but marketing speech straight from marketing department. That's so edited text doubtful there's anything original left except maybe units he chose to talk about if even that...

But sure forget about any critique. If post isn't 100% praise to GW about how they can do no wrong don't post. That's your attitude eh?

And btw obviously you don't just forget since you are so vehemently defending the article.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rhavien wrote:
Someone already mentioned this, but noone commented it. What if the buy in for a unit is actually higher than to just boost the modelcount? Say 5 marines 75 points, but 13 points to add more to this squad? Isn't that the way 30k handles it? I guess I would be fine with this. Counting in some AoS style boosts for to hit or to wound when reaching X models in a unit could be a good balance to the moral system punishing larger units.

That's how HH does it and as I said with luck GW is smart enough to borrow it. That way if despite all the boosts horde might be getting MSU is still superior like it's been like from rogue trader it would nicely be reflected in points. Good idea and no wonder HH has it as FW designers are more competent than GW ones. With luck it ports itself into 40k as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Can't say I like the change on the to wound chart but I won't get into this discussion again since I had it with AoS.

Which means I'll jump right into the pudding - do we have any inkling on the book prices yet?

So far only this: "Every army gets rules day one. 5 books, rules for all armies split across these. (low price point mentioned, a lot less than a codex) "

So less than a codex for 8th ed it looks. Not bad at all.

On the large models article they never realy talked about how many weapons can large models fire in a turn. MC's use to only be able to shoot two weapons a turn, and in some editions you can more or less freely fire all the weapons on a tank. Some you were limited by how many you could fire.

After the article on infantry, and re-reading the large models article, I wounder if lage models can shoot all their guns in their profile now?

I can't see the rule being a blanket "you get to shoot everything" rule, or eals space marines get to shoot their bolters AND bolt pistols witch is kinda funky.

Cannot wait to see how characters work in 8th. Very very curious... I think I'm closing in on a 100 Ultramarine characters (if you count sergeants)... but it want balance and good (smooth) gameplay. Having taken a year off of 40k and played X-Wing and 1page40k, I've really got to appreciate the depth that more streamlined rules can still have... and I hate spending half of a game either looking up/explaining/debating rules at the club... I just want to play again already

 Lockark wrote:
On the large models article they never realy talked about how many weapons can large models fire in a turn. MC's use to only be able to shoot two weapons a turn, and in some editions you can more or less freely fire all the weapons on a tank. Some you were limited by how many you could fire.

After the article on infantry, and re-reading the large models article, I wounder if lage models can shoot all their guns in their profile now?

I can't see the rule being a blanket "you get to shoot everything" rule, or eals space marines get to shoot their bolters AND bolt pistols witch is kinda funky.

Well that's how it works in AOS so there's predecent. But guess that could be prevented by having fire all on rule in some keyword shared by monsters and tanks?

More likely that Space Marines lose their Bolt Pistols by default !

MaxT wrote:
More likely that Space Marines lose their Bolt Pistols by default !

That\s also possibility depending on do they count that as violating "every model remains" or not(since that would leave plenty people with pistols that no longer exists but so minor that maybe they let that pass)

Also potential issue if rapid fire prevents assault which is what for pistol was added in the first place.

Backfire wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.

But the concepts of small-arms and anti-tank weapons aren't abstract, so even when talking about fictional weaponry it shouldn't be too hard to determine what would be realistic in context/universe.

Exactly. Even a fictional universe should have its internally consistent rules: there is a reason 40k doesn't feature pistols with S10 AP1 72" range. Or Ratling-sized model with S10 T10 8 Wounds, and so on...

But it could. There's no real reason those weapons couldn't exist within the world of 40k. In fact, it's kinda dumb that they don't, the tiny gun devastating mountainsides is a staple of sci-fi.

tneva82 wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Can't say I like the change on the to wound chart but I won't get into this discussion again since I had it with AoS.

Which means I'll jump right into the pudding - do we have any inkling on the book prices yet?

So far only this: "Every army gets rules day one. 5 books, rules for all armies split across these. (low price point mentioned, a lot less than a codex) "

So less than a codex for 8th ed it looks. Not bad at all.

Not bad at all indeed .

But let me get this straight - we'll have 5 faction books + General handbook? And the faction books will be cheaper than codices?

Madness, I tell you. Madness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


But there aren't any of those in 40k. Well, not yet anyway. And that's the whole point.

And to be honest not all sci-fi staples need to exist in a sci-fi setting.