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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So Chaos Marines got their update first and as a consequence seem to have been cheated out of a quality write up.

Deja vu!

Apparently the next focus unit is Rubric Marines nice to see they are still listening

krazynadechukr wrote:

 nintura wrote:
Lol Guardsment having 4 shots at half range. Good lord!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:

 nintura wrote:
RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.

Bite your tongue. They are calling this the Warhammer 40,000: Ultra Edition after all

lols, fair enough. Should have seen that coming.

I am ready to roll!

This edition is turning out to look really good. Now all we need is new plastic guard kits that can make one of several famous guard armies!

Fully agree!

 En Excelsis wrote:
Even if you don't like the models personally it's better to have the option for players other than yourself to use them. Why rob them of a choice simply because you would make it differently?

He thinks they would instantly be replaced with some new unit and new models. Forgetting GW doesn't need to remove rules from unit to add new one. Or what was removed to introduce Centurions?-) Guillimann?-)

 En Excelsis wrote:


My bad, I didn't realize that these playtesters were in fact deities who know and love everything about 40k and can do no wrong. Forgive me oh Lord of the Tournament Host!

My statement is no less true just because you think more highly of the playtester than I do. For the record, I wasn't exactly calling them bad people either, I simply stated that because they are in the role of playtesting and as such they have the ear of GW, it will be their bias that finds its way into the rules. All human beings have bias - impartiality is less common than unicorns.

Without using the same words GW has already confirmed as much - their own verbiage clearly illustrates a strong desire to streamline play for shorter matches. They are clearly in the market for more games played at a more rapid pace (quantity over quality).

You realize that there's amiddle ground between deriding someone for running a tournament and exalting them as a god right?

You could perhaps, have some respect for the contributions they have made to the community at the expense of their own time?

So you don't like quick tournament play.... Fine

They run campaign events.
Have very active you-tube channels.
Organize apocalypse and less competitive play that can last upwards of days.
Run successful communities out of their own game shops.
Have the largest painting and modeling competitions by far.

and now on top of all that, they are working to address the issues in 40k that make it less than fun to play; but for some reason all you have for them is derisive criticism and sarcastic praise. I'm not asking you to give anyone a BJ, but don't dismiss them because one small facet of what they provide to the community isn't to your taste.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Gross...

That, to me, is one of the biggest downfalls of them doing the whole "No model left behind!" thing. I hate Rough Riders. I've ranted/raved about it elsewhere so I'll refrain from doing it too much here, but man. I'm not happy to see that.

Yes, god forbid someone else might like them! It is obviously not enough for you to just not include them in your army, they must be eradicated from the game altogether!

Mmmmmm, rough riders! Now I can use these beautiful models again!

I wish they'd show off some examples of wargear and such to go along with the new character rules. There are a large number of wargear options throughout the current rule books that impact the IC and the unit he joins.

For example, the Astral Grimoire allows the IC and the unit he joins to effectively move like they have jump packs. If an IC can't join a unit any longer and this book loses a great deal of its value since the IC would then need to have a Disc to go along with the grimoire so he could keep up with the unit.

Will they change these to be worded like "The character and up to one unit within 12" or will these types of wargear just have their points costs reduced and only impact the IC?

 En Excelsis wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Some juicy updates today
Notably Rough Riders are still a thing

Gross...

That, to me, is one of the biggest downfalls of them doing the whole "No model left behind!" thing. I hate Rough Riders. I've ranted/raved about it elsewhere so I'll refrain from doing it too much here, but man. I'm not happy to see that.

Also really bummed to STILL not have an answer as to whether or not Guard Sergeants can take a flipping Lasgun. ARGH!
Marine Sergeants can take Boltguns, Tau squad leaders don't upgrade, etc. Why the frig do Guard have mandatory ones?

Even if you don't like the models personally it's better to have the option for players other than yourself to use them. Why rob them of a choice simply because you would make it differently?

Notice I didn't say anything about the models themselves, beyond that this is a downfall of the whole "No model left behind!" thing.


I hate them not for their models but the concept. They work fine, conceptually, in Death Korps of Krieg or as a specialized unit in a specialized regiment--but they just don't work conceptually for the Guard as a generalized army.
You like 'em? Good for you. I don't. I think the design should have been scrapped ages ago and work focused on actual issues with the army to get them to a point where it wasn't just gimmicky Veteran lists or Blob Squad crap.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Some juicy updates today
Notably Rough Riders are still a thing

Gross...

That, to me, is one of the biggest downfalls of them doing the whole "No model left behind!" thing. I hate Rough Riders. I've ranted/raved about it elsewhere so I'll refrain from doing it too much here, but man. I'm not happy to see that.

"I dont like it when other people can take models they like, but I don't like."

Hasn't that been the argument against Tau since 3rd?

I thought the Tau were the best argument against Tau .... damn space communists!

Looks like i nailed it on those Tyrant Guards.

tneva82 wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:
Even if you don't like the models personally it's better to have the option for players other than yourself to use them. Why rob them of a choice simply because you would make it differently?

He thinks they would instantly be replaced with some new unit and new models. Forgetting GW doesn't need to remove rules from unit to add new one. Or what was removed to introduce Centurions?-) Guillimann?-)

Yeah, no.

I'm of the opinion that the fact that nothing was ever done for them beyond copy/pasting should have told anyone and everyone all they needed to know about how lackluster the Guard books have been since Cruddace's dismal book.
I'm of the opinion that the fact that the models have been discontinued for almost five years and they still haven't bothered to release a new kit should tell you everything you need to know.

Once again, very happy with the change to Characters. For an intents and purposes, the Characters remain "attached" to units. They are just easier to deal with now if you want, and perhaps easier to hide as well if you have tides of models between your character and the opponent. I like the explicit buffs that Characters will give (although re-roll 1's is a bit boring), rather than juggling USR's to make super-units.

All this hate for Reece and Frankie is funny. Yes, they are primarily competitive players, but they both really love the game in all it's aspects. A tight competitive ruleset is good for all players of the game. A balanced well-designed ruleset benefits narative players just as much as competitive players. GW doesn't need help coming up with narative content - they need help balancing the ruleset. I'm glad they'e been working with the experienced players out there to fine tune their rules.

The Russ tank, on paper given what we've seen, initially looks quite tough, but if we look at the Lascannon stats from earlier, is probably no more resilient now than it was before.

Under 7E rules, you needed 13.5 BS4 Lascannons to kill through HP loss, and a 1/54 chance to explode with any one shot. Now it will take an average of 9.25 BS4 Lascannons to kill. Going to T8 makes it easier for Lascannons to "wound", and coupled with D6 damage really undercuts the save and large number of wounds.

Now, we dont know how other effects like Haywire or Gauss will work, or what points costs or other such things may look like, but given that the Russ was already mostly immune to HP stripping stuff like Scatterlasers, overall it appears there may not be much to celebrate about Russ resiliency save for CC.

Hopefully its firepower and cost will balance that out, otherwise the Russ may not see the field any more than they do now.

Oh god, I just realized... If SM still get cheap squads of scout snipers...

RIP my poor IG characters XD

 davou wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:


My bad, I didn't realize that these playtesters were in fact deities who know and love everything about 40k and can do no wrong. Forgive me oh Lord of the Tournament Host!

My statement is no less true just because you think more highly of the playtester than I do. For the record, I wasn't exactly calling them bad people either, I simply stated that because they are in the role of playtesting and as such they have the ear of GW, it will be their bias that finds its way into the rules. All human beings have bias - impartiality is less common than unicorns.

Without using the same words GW has already confirmed as much - their own verbiage clearly illustrates a strong desire to streamline play for shorter matches. They are clearly in the market for more games played at a more rapid pace (quantity over quality).

You realize that there's amiddle ground between deriding someone for running a tournament and exalting them as a god right?

You could perhaps, have some respect for the contributions they have made to the community at the expense of their own time?

So you don't like quick tournament play.... Fine

They run campaign events.
Have very active you-tube channels.
Organize apocalypse and less competitive play that can last upwards of days.
Run successful communities out of their own game shops.
Have the largest painting and modeling competitions by far.

and now on top of all that, they are working to address the issues in 40k that make it less than fun to play; but for some reason all you have for them is derisive criticism and sarcastic praise. I'm not asking you to give anyone a BJ, but don't dismiss them because one small facet of what they provide to the community isn't to your taste.

I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.

This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...

My hope for 40k is that is sees a return to form in terms of playstyle and not playtime. It's clearly just my own bias, but I will almost always prefer quality of quantity when it comes to 40k.

Mm. I love this. "No more independent characters magically intercepting an entire armies shooting on their tiny stormshield."

 labmouse42 wrote:

demontalons wrote:
But also hooray! No more deathstars

This.

Deathstars have dominated 40k for years. Not having them in the game will completely change the way the game is played.

I'm incredibly excited about this.

Deathstars aren't really gone. The way they function has though.

We will still have really, really killy or really, really tough units by way of buffs and synergies, but not usually both at the same time. And the support can be cracked if you can maneuver to it.

 En Excelsis wrote:


I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.

What exactly do you think their malign influence will be? I promise you 40K won't turn into Call of Duty with 14 year olds saying awful things about your mother because tournament players playtested the game. I agree with you, that most 40k players are not tournament players. However, a tight well-designed game will benefit ALL players and experts are best equipped to help evaluate the design of the new edition.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Mm. I love this. "No more independent characters magically intercepting an entire armies shooting on their tiny stormshield."

Oh yeah. Though frankly it was not the stormshield but 2+(+) rerollable that was even more annoying.

But that was one of the things I hated about previous character rules. Character jumping magically between bullets. Oh wait except if the shot actually has realistic chance of threatening him then he suddenly conveniently manages to push someone else between shot.

ARGH! That's just such a suspension killer. Character shouldn't be able to protect unit like that. Especially while being protected in turn by unit from serious character killers.

Thank god they got rid of that.

 Ir0njack wrote:
Oh god, I just realized... If SM still get cheap squads of scout snipers...

RIP my poor IG characters XD

Scouts could still be cheap while sniper rifles run at a premium.

Caederes wrote:

Ghorros wrote:
I'm hoping that Noise Marines work like the Kakophoni formation in Traitor Legions.

If they get 3 shots each, strength 5, with rerolls to wound, I will be a happy camper.

60 Noise Marines would get 180 shots against a Knight. 120 hits, 40 wounds, then shred tossing in another 26.66.

That would be enough to drop a Knight in a single round. Those sonic blasters will be death if they don't change.

That depends on a few factors. We know that it has over two twenty wounds, but that's about it, right?
Assuming it has a 3+ save, it would survive your theoretical Noise Marine shooting if it had more than 22-23 Wounds, which is not unlikely.

Remember also that formations are gone and you'd be paying out the nose for rules like that. It's great that you have such high theoretical damage output, but what if those units eat up your entire points limit and are just as easy to kill as any other Space Marine? Not good.

ACK! RAIN! MY PARADE!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ir0njack wrote:
Oh god, I just realized... If SM still get cheap squads of scout snipers...

RIP my poor IG characters XD

Scouts could still be cheap while sniper rifles run at a premium.

Also, Guard might still have their characters in squad formats.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

demontalons wrote:
But also hooray! No more deathstars

This.

Deathstars have dominated 40k for years. Not having them in the game will completely change the way the game is played.

I'm incredibly excited about this.

Deathstars aren't really gone. The way they function has though.

We will still have really, really killy or really, really tough units by way of buffs and synergies, but not usually both at the same time. And the support can be cracked if you can maneuver to it.

They're Star Destroyers now...

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:


I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.

What exactly do you think their malign influence will be? I promise you 40K won't turn into Call of Duty with 14 year olds saying awful things about your mother because tournament players playtested the game. I agree with you, that most 40k players are not tournament players. However, a tight well-designed game will benefit ALL players and experts are best equipped to help evaluate the design of the new edition.

What I think will happen is that the rules will change to reflect the desires/interests of one small group of persons at the expense of the desires/interests of the community at large.

Now, admittedly this supposes a few things. For example it implies that the community doesn't want the same thing that he playtesters want (rules oriented towards expediency at the cost of fun/quality). I'm certain that there are exceptions. And I want to reiterate again that I am not calling the playtesters bad people. If I were in the business of selling tournament tickets and organizing events that people paid to participate in, it would be in my best interest to host more of those events, and it becomes easier to host more of them if the events themselves are shorter. Fairly simple logic.

I worry at the games appeal for myself and others will diminish as a result of GW's hunt for mass appeal.

With the limited information we currently have I'd say 8th seems like a wash for me. Some things are better than 7th, some things are worse. Hopefully as they reveal more information the pendulum will swing further towards 'better'. But I won't jump on the bandwagon and assume that things are going to be better just because they got a few specific people involved to playtest.

sturguard wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

sturguard wrote:
I am not sure why folks think this is the most play tested version of 40k.

Because GW has admitted they haven't put as much effort into any other edition before this one, to include when 3rd and 4th came out.

sturguard wrote:
However one thing is certain, no matter what rules they come up with the players will break. 100% guarantee.

Likely true. That said, if GW holds up on their promise to keep updating the edition said breaks will be fixed in a timely manner.

What would lead you to believe that? Given GWs track record there has to be more than just "they told us so"?

How long has AoS been out? When are the Ogres getting their update?

Again, I hope GW does the right thing, but given their track record, we won't know for about 2 years or so if they have changed their old habits.

Beastclaw raiders...they've put out a TON of books for AoS. 40K is in the limelight right now though. GHB2 is confirmed and on the way as well. I don't see the basis for your statement.

 Ir0njack wrote:
Oh god, I just realized... If SM still get cheap squads of scout snipers...

RIP my poor IG characters XD

Sniper nest? Sounds like time to call in some mortar fire before ordering the advance.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
From facebook:

The Chaos article was a little light compared to this one on the juicy details, so we'll use Rubric Marines when we look at Datasheets later in the week. How's that?

YAAASSSS!

 En Excelsis wrote:
With the limited information we currently have I'd say 8th seems like a wash for me. Some things are better than 7th, some things are worse. Hopefully as they reveal more information the pendulum will swinger further towards 'better'. But I won't jump on the bandwagon and assume that things are going to be better just because they got a few specific people involved to playtest.

Ditto. Luckily several things are easy to fix. Everything can wound everything easy to fix. LD takes bit more work but no biggie. Facings is also dirt easy to fix.

Too bad still keeps me out of tournaments :-/

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Good grief, give HBMC $100 and he'll complain he's not got $1000, a basket of puppies and a bottle of champagne.

I don't like champagne.

Eyjio wrote:
You know what's a good way to solve the deathstar problem? Not allowing deathstars to form!

"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.

You people are acting like every time GW reveals something new with their rules that it's the One True Path™ without even considering that there might be simpler or more elegant solutions to the things they're trying to solve. If Deathstars are a problem, then resolve that in a way that isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

"Characters joining units is creating situations where you have hard-as-nails super squads filled with characters!"
"What if we limit the amount of..."
"Ban characters form joining units!"
"Bravo! Three hour lunches for everyone! And after lunch we'll ignore the fact that we're reintroducing movement values and make charge distances random! Then we'll make sure that every single big creature in the game has its own unique chart for damage rather than a central one that will speed up play!"

At this point whether the rule works or not isn't the issue. It's the lengths GW seem to be going to ignore the problems with the game by sweeping it under the rug and pretending it's not there, all whilst introducing entirely new systems that don't address the old problems, just ignore them. If anything this will just create all new problems.

And you people are just lapping it up. Like any sense of critical thought went out the fething window after you got so suck of 7th Ed's unplayableness that you'll now readily accept anything as long as it's not 7th.

Crazy...

Yeah, that seems like a much more simple and elegant solution. These new character rules are weird.

 Ir0njack wrote:
Oh god, I just realized... If SM still get cheap squads of scout snipers...

RIP my poor IG characters XD

*looks expectantly at my 20 Deathmarks*

RUN AWAY LITTLE CHARACTERS

 Ratius wrote:
Now do a 20 man squad in rapid fire range

A better thought is this.
How do lasguns stack up against marines, the better target for them....

A lasgun has a 1/18 chance of killing a MEQ.
1/2 to hit * 1/3 to wound * 1/3 failed armor save.

That means 20 guard armed with lasguns will throw out 40 shots up close, killing about 2 of them. If you use FRFSRF, you will get about ~4.44 of them.
The reality is that you will likely have some special/heavy weapons in the mix. 2 flamers added to those 2 man groups will give more wounds. A sergeant with a laspistol will take away, etc...