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.

zamerion wrote:

You can do something like that:


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/04/tactical-toolbox-zoning-and-area-denial/

I'd say there's actually a bit of a difference between being "fully enclosed within the unit" like Labmouse posted and the example that GW gives there.

 Thud wrote:


Hiding in a unit, or hiding next to a unit. Does it really make a difference?

hiding in a unit, the character is constrained by the unit and cannot move or act independently, and can be affected by things that affect that squad (such as morale) that may not be applicable to a single model. That's a meaningful tradeoff to being able to hide from shooting.

Requizen wrote:

"Look, if I mix and match old rules and some of the newly released stuff that we only know half of, it's bad! The sky is falling!"

Just wait for the rest of the rules to be released and don't use 7th edition rules/points to try and prove something about new rules.

What a pointless post. You totally failed to realize the purpose of the discussion. I'm talking about hiding vs not hiding. Being able to hide makes you exponentially harder to kill, no matter how many more wounds the unit that cannot hide has.

I bet all the Greater Daemons have more than 10 wounds.

I would hazard that the Bloodthirster, Lord of Change and Keeper of Secret all have at least 12.
Where as the Great Unclean One probably has 14 or 15.

 Crimson wrote:

I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.

Indeed. With that size difference if we followed TLoS rules you'd need some pretty big model to protect Magnus.

That said I'm willing to bet that with his dozen wounds he got other buffs.

Hm. Are swooping/gliding things in AoS?

From the facebook page:

Hey Clinton,
challenge rules are gone from the fight phase, but the restriction on hitting lone characters is only in the shooting phase, so expect to still see mighty heroes taking chunks out of each other in the fight phase.

Challenges are gone, confirmed.

 davou wrote:

and they have the backing of very accomplished community contributors who say that this system works quickly and well on top of it. Apart from piles of pessimism, what makes you think your one sentence solution is better than theirs?

Playing the Devil's advocate here.

Having the backing of accomplished persons does not mean they are going to arrive at conclusions that solve all the problems. More importantly, it means that they will arrive at conclusions which favor whatever bias was present in those specific pockets of the community - which seems specific to tournament organizers. Their interest in clearly in streamlining the game for greater efficiency (here: shorter matches).

That is likely not what all players care about - It's purely speculative, but most of the folks I play with do so casually and only rarely engage in tournament play specifically because we don't like the added element of haste.

I've personally spent many thousands of dollars acquiring hundreds of models that I have painstakingly assembled, cleaned, primed, and painted over many hundreds of hours, which I lovingly pack into protective cases to bring to my FLGS or my buddies' place so that we can spend the time sharing and enjoying a hobby. From my perspective I enjoy that the game lasts a long while. I'd feel slighted if I put forth that much effort for only 20 minutes of gratification at the table. I'd rather play a meaningful, intense, and thoughtful game that lasts a few hours than blitz through have a dozen short matches. If I wanted the instant gratification of that playstyle I'd be playing Magic The Gathering.

I have my doubts about the new system. I can already see a few things that make me less than excited - but they sit along some things that I think have potential for good. I'll wait and see which side the scale falls on but I won't stop vocalizing my concerns simply because GW had a couple of their more fanatical players 'test' the new rules first.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Hm. Are swooping/gliding things in AoS?

Yes. For the most part, it's just Movement related stuff.

Flying/Swooping/Gliding things tend to have a very high Movement value to start with--and also they don't have the same restrictions for how they move(they can move over terrain and other units to get where they want to go--but cannot end their move on top of or within a certain distance of an enemy unit).

 Seneca wrote:

 davou wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

"A unit can only be joined by one character at a time."

Boom. Problems with multiple character Deathstars solved. No need to deny characters the opportunity lead units. Did it in one sentence.

So did they,

Characters cannot join units

and they have the backing of very accomplished community contributors who say that this system works quickly and well on top of it. Apart from piles of pessimism, what makes you think your one sentence solution is better than theirs?

Actually, his idea would have The same effect as GW's. Considering that sergeangts and other unit leaders count as characters too

So basically it does nothing then? Good to know.

That said, with the character shooting rule does this feel like we're stepping back from TLoS to "intervening units block LoS"? I mean it seems like it might be more nuanced than that with the 11+ wounds not getting protection, but I feel like screening units actually might be a lot more useful by preventing units from getting shot at instead of just providing cover in most cases.

 Crimson wrote:

I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.

Put RG up next to a regular marine though. Then tell me how he hides in the middle of that lol

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
To be fair, we don't actually know if Deathstars are actually, truly impossible now - we just know that the previous method of creating them (joining multiple ICs that grant special rules to particularly powerful units and/or using powers/equipment to buff them up) is no longer possible, and that keywords (in theory) will prevent the worst abuse.

Mortal wounds, keywords, and holistic balancing will hopefully prevent the worst excesses that we've seen, but clanging the death knell for Deathstars before we see all the rules seems... premature.

This is from GW's release. "So here’s a big thing – Characters can’t join units anymore. The age of the <add prefix>-star is over."

We know that they did extensive playtesting with tournament players. If there was an easy way to create deathstars, I expect these players would have discovered them and submitted feedback to correct it.
While it's possible that the global player base will find ways to create deathstars missed by the playtesting team, I am leaning against it.
I think the chances of deathstars accidentally being created through the release of further material through 8th edition is a distinct possibility. That will depend on the amount of playtesting done with further expansion material.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:


Falls apart as soon as the unit takes casualties. Either the models holding the objective have to go or those hiding the character.

...which is awesome. Moving attacking units into flanking positions has a chance of opening up character shots. Also, a meatshield unit will need to be very large to prevent focused firing from wiping it out.

This really isn't any different from 7th. If anything, characters are safer if the defending player gets to choose which models are moved.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
From the facebook page:

Hey Clinton,
challenge rules are gone from the fight phase, but the restriction on hitting lone characters is only in the shooting phase, so expect to still see mighty heroes taking chunks out of each other in the fight phase.

Challenges are gone, confirmed.

More streamlining and making alternating combats more important. Now do you activate your character first, or the unit he charged with?

Also looks like CSM should be happy: no more forced challenges.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Since Magnus has over a dozen wounds, does anyone else feel like the Greater Daemons will be rolling in at above ten wounds as well?

Without a doubt. Look at the new models for the LoC and Fateweaver. Look at the BT model. All of those are likely to be over 10 wounds.

 En Excelsis wrote:

 davou wrote:

and they have the backing of very accomplished community contributors who say that this system works quickly and well on top of it. Apart from piles of pessimism, what makes you think your one sentence solution is better than theirs?

Playing the Devil's advocate here.

Having the backing of accomplished persons does not mean they are going to arrive at conclusions that solve all the problems. More importantly, it means that they will arrive at conclusions which favor whatever bias was present in those specific pockets of the community - which seems specific to tournament organizers. Their interest in clearly in streamlining the game for greater efficiency (here: shorter matches).

That is likely not what all players care about - It's purely speculative, but most of the folks I play with do so casually and only rarely engage in tournament play specifically because we don't like the added element of haste.

I've personally spent many thousands of dollars acquiring hundreds of models that I have painstakingly assembled, cleaned, primed, and painted over many hundreds of hours, which I lovingly pack into protective cases to bring to my FLGS or my buddies' place so that we can spend the time sharing and enjoying a hobby. From my perspective I enjoy that the game lasts a long while. I'd feel slighted if I put forth that much effort for only 20 minutes of gratification at the table. I'd rather play a meaningful, intense, and thoughtful game that lasts a few hours than blitz through have a dozen short matches. If I wanted the instant gratification of that playstyle I'd be playing Magic The Gathering.

I have my doubts about the new system. I can already see a few things that make me less than excited - but they sit along some things that I think have potential for good. I'll wait and see which side the scale falls on but I won't stop vocalizing my concerns simply because GW had a couple of their more fanatical players 'test' the new rules first.

You could always, y'know, play more than one game.

On topic, this stops the slingshotting-a-character-into-combat nonsense. Which is good.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
To be fair, we don't actually know if Deathstars are actually, truly impossible now - we just know that the previous method of creating them (joining multiple ICs that grant special rules to particularly powerful units and/or using powers/equipment to buff them up) is no longer possible, and that keywords (in theory) will prevent the worst abuse.

Mortal wounds, keywords, and holistic balancing will hopefully prevent the worst excesses that we've seen, but clanging the death knell for Deathstars before we see all the rules seems... premature.

This is from GW's release. "So here’s a big thing – Characters can’t join units anymore. The age of the <add prefix>-star is over."

We know that they did extensive playtesting with tournament players. If there was an easy way to create deathstars, I expect these players would have discovered them and submitted feedback to correct it.
While it's possible that the global player base will find ways to create deathstars missed by the playtesting team, I am leaning against it.
I think the chances of deathstars accidentally being created through the release of further material through 8th edition is a distinct possibility. That will depend on the amount of playtesting done with further expansion material.

Like I said, its too early to tell, and at the very least, what we've seen suggests the ability to make deathstars will be significantly curbed.

But yes, I saw GW make that claim. Claiming something, and something being actually true, are distinct things, y'know.

 nintura wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.

Put RG up next to a regular marine though. Then tell me how he hides in the middle of that lol

He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?

 nintura wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.

Put RG up next to a regular marine though. Then tell me how he hides in the middle of that lol

He wears a really big camo cloak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Hm. Are swooping/gliding things in AoS?

Yes. For the most part, it's just Movement related stuff.

Flying/Swooping/Gliding things tend to have a very high Movement value to start with--and also they don't have the same restrictions for how they move(they can move over terrain and other units to get where they want to go--but cannot end their move on top of or within a certain distance of an enemy unit).

Hm. Curious how that'll carry over to 40k. Any penalties for shooting at them?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

So basically it does nothing then? Good to know.

It actually does worse than nothing: it makes character-less units like IG conscripts the automatic choice for character caddy duty. It replaces an elegant if not-exactly-perfect solution with a weird, gamey one.

But then HBMC is so good at critical thinking compared to us lapdogs, I'm sure he's got it all figured out.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
This makes me question if models still might come off from the front.

That's an excellent question. I, for one, really hope that they do not and it goes back to defender's choice.
It would make foot assault armies more viable.

I am quite positive that casualties will be removed according to controlling player's choice.
At least that's how casualties are removed in AoS.
And seeing how plenty of AoS rules are implemented in the new 40K edition, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 nintura wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.

Put RG up next to a regular marine though. Then tell me how he hides in the middle of that lol

He wears a really big camo cloak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Hm. Are swooping/gliding things in AoS?

Yes. For the most part, it's just Movement related stuff.

Flying/Swooping/Gliding things tend to have a very high Movement value to start with--and also they don't have the same restrictions for how they move(they can move over terrain and other units to get where they want to go--but cannot end their move on top of or within a certain distance of an enemy unit).

Hm. Curious how that'll carry over to 40k. Any penalties for shooting at them?

No, no penalties for shooting at Flying units. Though there is no distinction between those on Disks of Tzeentch (what would be a Jet Bike in 40k) or Aetherwings (flocks of birds).
Of course a Maw Krusha is technically a Flying unit, not sure there is much that would miss a cabbage...

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.

Put RG up next to a regular marine though. Then tell me how he hides in the middle of that lol

He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?

No but you're using "if" statements. Hell, I could hide Magnus behind two knights. Does that count?

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

So basically it does nothing then? Good to know.

It actually does worse than nothing: it makes character-less units like IG conscripts the automatic choice for character caddy duty. It replaces an elegant if not-exactly-perfect solution with a weird, gamey one.

But then HBMC is so good at critical thinking compared to us lapdogs, I'm sure he's got it all figured out.

Yeah, that would be pretty wonky.

I can definitely respect that people might feel a certain level of trepidation towards drastic changes in a game they know and probably like. That said, I can't really respect blasting others for liking the sound of said changes, or the idea that because it's different it's somehow automatically worse than before.

I won't pretend the new editionnwill automatically be good, but I do see reason to have some level of hope in it being reasonably good. Might even be tremendous great. Won't know until I have some games in to be honest. But I definitely think it's too early to get worked up over potential abuse of the game. We have the most play tested edition coming out and if we can see the problems from just these snipoets, the testers definitely saw them from the full rules. I won't promise hey're fixed, but if we can see the issue now, it's most likely not really an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.

Put RG up next to a regular marine though. Then tell me how he hides in the middle of that lol

He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?

No but you're using "if" statements. Hell, I could hide Magnus behind two knights. Does that count?

It might. Depends on what the new rules for screening models are.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
This makes me question if models still might come off from the front.

That's an excellent question. I, for one, really hope that they do not and it goes back to defender's choice.
It would make foot assault armies more viable.

I am quite positive that casualties will be removed according to controlling player's choice.
At least that's how casualties are removed in AoS.
And seeing how plenty of AoS rules are implemented in the new 40K edition, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true.

I know it works counter to GW's intentions of making all matches 5 minutes or less (/s) but I think that in this case there should be one system for melee and one system for ranged. Ranged attacks should always hit/wound the units closest to the firing unit. In melee it should be players choice. I know there is always the odd explanation of how it could be explained in this way or that (pushing your friend out of the way and taking a bullet for him) but I think the law of averages with what is effectively machine-gun fire would ultimately work that out.

This also runs afoul of any models that currently have 'lot out sir!' or similar rules but we don't know if those things will continue exactly as they do now so...

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

zamerion wrote:


You can do something like that:

Spoiler:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/04/tactical-toolbox-zoning-and-area-denial/

Falls apart as soon as the unit takes casualties. Either the models holding the objective have to go or those hiding the character.

Yep. That's why I suggested something like what I designed. A better way would be to do something like this. This lets the IC 'buff' both units, and gives a set of coverage for the IC. It blocks the 'drop pod assassination'. It keeps the IC from becoming the closest target until both units are whittled down.

X....X....X....X.....Y....Y....Y....Y....Y
.
...X....X....X.....IC....Y....Y....Y
.
X....X....X....X.....Y....Y....Y....Y....Y


My big question is this.....Will ICs be able to ride in a transport with other models? Or will one of them take all the transport capacity of a stormraven?
That will have a big impact on how transports are used.

 Alpharius wrote:
At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.

That makes me and my 5 loyalist stompies sad.

 nintura wrote:

 lessthanjeff wrote:


He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?

No but you're using "if" statements. Hell, I could hide Magnus behind two knights. Does that count?

I don't see the word "if" anywhere in what you quoted. What is the source of the complaint about Guilliman being able to hide then? You just think everyone should get to hide even if 95% of the models in the game only reach someone's waist? It seems reasonable to set a criteria where some models are easy to pick out of a crowd while others are not. A towering behemoth larger than many fortifications in the game would be a good candidate for someone that can't hide while a model that can easily duck behind a rhino is a good one to get to hide.

The real fix to Death Stars is in the keyword system that they are implementing now. This allows IC's to pass out buffs to their intended recipients while cutting out the shenanigans. Players like H.B.M.C. and Liberal_Perturabo should go ahead and make sure to laminate their copies of the 7th edition ruleset then find a table somewhere in the corner where they can play 40K their way until their hearts content.

 kronk wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.

That makes me and my 5 loyalist stompies sad.

Takes 111 Scatterlasers to kill the new one. It'd take just as many bolters and a gak ton more lasguns.

It can be wounded by more things, but it's not the best method for dealing with it.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 lessthanjeff wrote:


He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?

No but you're using "if" statements. Hell, I could hide Magnus behind two knights. Does that count?

I don't see the word "if" anywhere in what you quoted. What is the source of the complaint about Guilliman being able to hide then? You just think everyone should get to hide even if 95% of the models in the game only reach someone's waist? It seems reasonable to set a criteria where some models are easy to pick out of a crowd while others are not. A towering behemoth larger than many fortifications in the game would be a good candidate for someone that can't hide while a model that can easily duck behind a rhino is a good one to get to hide.

Hence the "" marks... it was said "but what about centurions." That's an "if" statement. IF I had Cents, he could hide. IF I had knights, Magnus could hide. I just dont see how the number of wounds should make it possible to hide or not. RG is twice the size, or more, of the surrounding troops.