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:
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.

So you want a game designed by committee?

More Q&As from the Guard comments section:
Q: MUCH better than the pointless Chaos article, though could still do with rule tidbits rather than just HYPE for the first half!
A: But you guys love hype...

Q: Go back to calling them Imperial Guard. Please. What's funny is that even the writer had a freudian slip near the end and called them guard.
A: Call them the Guard if you like. It's just the High Gothic name for them, like Space Marines being called Adeptus Astartes. The infantry are still called Guardsmen after all.

Q: Will there be articles like this for all the factions of the game, even minor ones like the Harlequins?
A: Yes and yes.

Q: Is every vehicle going to have a 3+ save or is this just a coincidence?
A: Hey Stuart,
They certainly don't all have a 3+ save.

Q: GET ON THE HYPE TRAIN FOR ROUGH RIDERS
A: The Hype Cart, surely.

Q: please show some love for nids
A: Tyranids, being an intergalactic galaxy-eating predator, are incapable of love, and feel only hunger...

(But we will have an article on them soon, if that's what you mean.)

I'm guessing our AV10 vehicles will get a 4+, or maybe a 5+.

Wonder if Extra Armour is still a thing and what it does now.

 Ghaz wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:
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.

So you want a game designed by committee?

Having done a bit of playtesting for a different system - its a thankless task which most do out of love for the game.

The desires / interests of the community are so diverse that you can not design a game to please all.

Some of the questions on facebook are just... urgh "OMG GW THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER PLEASE REMOVE IT!" (Is that even a question? )

Seeing that not only they respond to that, but they do it politely and a little Smugy (Like Wendy's), is a good thing to me.

 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.

why would that be unfortunate? there is a ocean of dreadnought variants that have not seen the table in years due to the broken rules.
it will be unfortunate to see variation?

unless you mean there will be dreadnought spam.... I'm currently painting up two for 8th edition.

 Megaknob 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.

why would that be unfortunate? there is a ocean of dreadnought variants that have not seen the table in years due to the broken rules.
it will be unfortunate to see variation?

unless you mean there will be dreadnought spam.... I'm currently painting up two for 8th edition.

I think that you have misinterpreted him. He was saying the opposite actually. That Dreadnoughts won't be any good in this edition.
My opinion on this is that it will come down to Point Cost. Dreadnoughts aren't Knights or Titans, they are totally killiable. They need to have a apropiate point cost to their defensive and offensive capabilities. It is not about making them inmortal.

 Galas wrote:
Some of the questions on facebook are just... urgh "OMG GW THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER PLEASE REMOVE IT!" (Is that even a question? )

Seeing that not only they respond to that, but they do it politely and a little Smugy (Like Wendy's), is a good thing to me.

Agreed. I love the New Games Workshop™ brand of Smug™. It's certainly the highest quality smug™ I've seen lately.

 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.

great. Challenge could have been a good idea, but they were so poorly implemented that I don't mind seeing them leave


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Megaknob 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.

why would that be unfortunate? there is a ocean of dreadnought variants that have not seen the table in years due to the broken rules.
it will be unfortunate to see variation?

unless you mean there will be dreadnought spam.... I'm currently painting up two for 8th edition.

read his post more carefully

 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!

He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s. My problem is that this is more a result of GW only wanting to make rules for models as they exist but also not really being interested in keeping the whole range up to date all the time. Rough Riders could easily have a mandatory option where you pick horses or bikes and old school players who think horses in the 41st millenium are cool get to keep old models and cool conversions but us meddling kids get things that make sense in a post 90s sci fi setting.

Below is an off topic rant that originally was meant to be an analogy to another game that turned into speculative reverse-nostalgia. I will leave it here because I think its important.

Yes!

Combined with the fact that every weapon has a chance to hit any target, the much-derided lasgun can now be the deadly laser weapon the Emperor’s armies need.

I'm sure that they meant 'hurt' there, and I can't help but feel that GW's trolling us by trying to re-start (?) that whole Landraider thing...again!

tneva82 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/09/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-astra-militarum/

Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.

Now THAT is faction focus article that is actually more than just marketing speech.

Also one point regarding character rules. Overall I have no big issue with it(the loss of cinematics is sad but something's got to go). Mechanically there's one issue I have with it though it's minor one. Basically the gap between 10th and 11th wound is big. As it is now getting that 11th wound is huge drawback. Characters probably will prefer having 10 wounds over 16! And it intuitivitely feels WRONG being punished by having extra wounds...

Also it removes some flexibility as you can't have small character that should be able to hide with say 12 wounds. Albeit no character like that exists now(I think no character fits that description) but it does limit potential for new models.

Since they have keywords now feel this would have been good place to do it on keywords. Negative effect keywords isn't anything weird so having negative keyword that prevents hiding for heroes would be quite doable and would make more wounds be always good. And remove that artificial 10->11 wound gap that's going to be killer. I mean it feels odd you have 11 wound model and say 6 wound model with otherwise equal and have the 11 wound one be cheaper...

Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable

 Alpharius wrote:
Yes!

Combined with the fact that every weapon has a chance to hit any target, the much-derided lasgun can now be the deadly laser weapon the Emperor’s armies need.

I'm sure that they meant 'hurt' there, and I can't help but feel that GW's trolling us by trying to re-start (?) that whole Landraider thing...again!

Thankfully basic math shows how unrealistic it is to rely on a bunch of diddly to solve all your problems.

 Powerfisting wrote:

He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.

Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.

 streetsamurai wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/09/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-astra-militarum/

Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.

Now THAT is faction focus article that is actually more than just marketing speech.

Also one point regarding character rules. Overall I have no big issue with it(the loss of cinematics is sad but something's got to go). Mechanically there's one issue I have with it though it's minor one. Basically the gap between 10th and 11th wound is big. As it is now getting that 11th wound is huge drawback. Characters probably will prefer having 10 wounds over 16! And it intuitivitely feels WRONG being punished by having extra wounds...

Also it removes some flexibility as you can't have small character that should be able to hide with say 12 wounds. Albeit no character like that exists now(I think no character fits that description) but it does limit potential for new models.

Since they have keywords now feel this would have been good place to do it on keywords. Negative effect keywords isn't anything weird so having negative keyword that prevents hiding for heroes would be quite doable and would make more wounds be always good. And remove that artificial 10->11 wound gap that's going to be killer. I mean it feels odd you have 11 wound model and say 6 wound model with otherwise equal and have the 11 wound one be cheaper...

Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable

it's bad design when people make up hypothetical characters that don't exist as a strawman.

Q: > Guilliman standing further away than a single guardsman.
> Enemy cannot target the huge dude that towers over vehicles, because single Guardsman is closer.
Makes sense.
A: If your army can't kill that one Guardsman first, what exactly were you going to shoot at Guilliman that was going to worry him?

Lurve the snark!

 streetsamurai wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/09/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-astra-militarum/

Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.

Now THAT is faction focus article that is actually more than just marketing speech.

Also one point regarding character rules. Overall I have no big issue with it(the loss of cinematics is sad but something's got to go). Mechanically there's one issue I have with it though it's minor one. Basically the gap between 10th and 11th wound is big. As it is now getting that 11th wound is huge drawback. Characters probably will prefer having 10 wounds over 16! And it intuitivitely feels WRONG being punished by having extra wounds...

Also it removes some flexibility as you can't have small character that should be able to hide with say 12 wounds. Albeit no character like that exists now(I think no character fits that description) but it does limit potential for new models.

Since they have keywords now feel this would have been good place to do it on keywords. Negative effect keywords isn't anything weird so having negative keyword that prevents hiding for heroes would be quite doable and would make more wounds be always good. And remove that artificial 10->11 wound gap that's going to be killer. I mean it feels odd you have 11 wound model and say 6 wound model with otherwise equal and have the 11 wound one be cheaper...

Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable

Disagree on it being automatically labeled as "bad design" with no insight on the sort of rules will be involved. That's like seeing a single cloud in the sky and complaining that it's hailing: you're jumping the gun with the worst possible interpretation. Sure it's useful to keep your expectations low, but is it really contributing anything to the discussion to look at a new mechanic and just go "looks like gak" without getting a chance to use it?

I'm guessing that 11 wounds won't be a common wound count. And for those who have over 10 will likely have other rules to help protect them (low number saves, high toughness, wargear that makes them harder to hit, ect). I'd be willing to bet some will even have rules to regenerate lost wounds, or limit the number of wounds they take (like the Stone Skeleton in AoS). If those models aren't able to withstand some punishment from dedicated firepower I'd be frankly shocked. Especially since that would be one of the first things people would be looking at in testing since you can't hide them in units anymore.

 En Excelsis wrote:

 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.

I think it is a pretty large assumption that rules are being oriented toward expediency at the cost of fun/quality. Now some changes may end up that way for some people, but that has been true of every edition with rules, and it has been done to no gain as often as not. I cannot think of any rules where a particular change is measurably less "fun" or "lower quality", only areas where some people have a preference for the way things have always been.

The most complained about things I've seen are
Loss of Armor values - this seems to be a balance thing more than a speed thing. GW has obviously had issues balancing vehicles with respect to other units for a long time.

Everything wounds everything - not a change for expedience at all, actually slows the game down by allowing attacks where none existed before. This is a change for "fun"/interactivity. Now if you don't like it, that has nothing to do with whether it was made as a decision to make the game faster at the expense of fun.

Morale - this speeds things up by testing fewer times per turn, it also makes morale much more meaningful than the all or nothing game we have now. Whether it is fun or of lower quality is again opinion. Some people like it some don't, which is true of every rule.

Largely complaints are "I liked the way things were, regarding x and am unhappy it changed." Or " I think a better solution existed to y problem." The game is far from perfect but always has been. But it does not seem to me that the playtester bias is pushing toward speed at the cost of fun specifically. Knowing what I do about the playtesters the largest bias I'm aware or is against deathstar units. So in that manor if you like deathstars seeing them made weaker may upset you.

 Crimson wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:

He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.

Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.

Veterans with Sniper Rifles are a fair option if you don't want to run Ratlings too. Plus some of them look pretty good:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I think it is a pretty large assumption that rules are being oriented toward expediency at the cost of fun/quality. Now some changes may end up that way for some people, but that has been true of every edition with rules, and it has been done to no gain as often as not. I cannot think of any rules where a particular change is measurably less "fun" or "lower quality", only areas where some people have a preference for the way things have always been.

The most complained about things I've seen are
Loss of Armor values - this seems to be a balance thing more than a speed thing. GW has obviously had issues balancing vehicles with respect to other units for a long time.

Everything wounds everything - not a change for expedience at all, actually slows the game down by allowing attacks where none existed before. This is a change for "fun"/interactivity. Now if you don't like it, that has nothing to do with whether it was made as a decision to make the game faster at the expense of fun.

Morale - this speeds things up by testing fewer times per turn, it also makes morale much more meaningful than the all or nothing game we have now. Whether it is fun or of lower quality is again opinion. Some people like it some don't, which is true of every rule.

Largely complaints are "I liked the way things were, regarding x and am unhappy it changed." Or " I think a better solution existed to y problem." The game is far from perfect but always has been. But it does not seem to me that the playtester bias is pushing toward speed at the cost of fun specifically. Knowing what I do about the playtesters the largest bias I'm aware or is against deathstar units. So in that manor if you like deathstars seeing them made weaker may upset you.

Fully agree 10,000%. There are definitely changes that roll the speed of the game both ways. Fluff was rolled back for balance, and speed was rolled back for fluff. The game is looking like they tried to strike a balance between balance, speed and fluff and I approve!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/09/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-astra-militarum/

Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.

Now THAT is faction focus article that is actually more than just marketing speech.

Also one point regarding character rules. Overall I have no big issue with it(the loss of cinematics is sad but something's got to go). Mechanically there's one issue I have with it though it's minor one. Basically the gap between 10th and 11th wound is big. As it is now getting that 11th wound is huge drawback. Characters probably will prefer having 10 wounds over 16! And it intuitivitely feels WRONG being punished by having extra wounds...

Also it removes some flexibility as you can't have small character that should be able to hide with say 12 wounds. Albeit no character like that exists now(I think no character fits that description) but it does limit potential for new models.

Since they have keywords now feel this would have been good place to do it on keywords. Negative effect keywords isn't anything weird so having negative keyword that prevents hiding for heroes would be quite doable and would make more wounds be always good. And remove that artificial 10->11 wound gap that's going to be killer. I mean it feels odd you have 11 wound model and say 6 wound model with otherwise equal and have the 11 wound one be cheaper...

Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable

Disagree on it being automatically labeled as "bad design" with no insight on the sort of rules will be involved. That's like seeing a single cloud in the sky and complaining that it's hailing: you're jumping the gun with the worst possible interpretation. Sure it's useful to keep your expectations low, but is it really contributing anything to the discussion to look at a new mechanic and just go "looks like gak" without getting a chance to use it?

I'm guessing that 11 wounds won't be a common wound count. And for those who have over 10 will likely have other rules to help protect them (low number saves, high toughness, wargear that makes them harder to hit, ect). I'd be willing to bet some will even have rules to regenerate lost wounds, or limit the number of wounds they take (like the Stone Skeleton in AoS). If those models aren't able to withstand some punishment from dedicated firepower I'd be frankly shocked. Especially since that would be one of the first things people would be looking at in testing since you can't hide them in units anymore.

A lot of the 10 v 11 line also comes down to general character build on either side of the line. If there are a lot of Rowboat style characters on the low end it could be an issue, but if many 11 wound+ characters have say 2+ saves, T9, other durability issues, faster movement etc. It could balance out quite a bit. As always there will probably be winners and losers in this regard.

 En Excelsis wrote:

 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.

I agree with you. I'm not willing to give these guys ''god without confession'' as we say in french. Hopefully they manage to playtest in a way that the feedback they give result in a game that I like, but I'm worried since I'm far from a tournament player, and that seems to be their emphasis.
As for your first phrase, don't you know that for a few posters on Dakka, anything else than unbridled enthusiasm and praise is considered as an insulting criticism?

Well unless the Tau have received a huge overhall the meta against them will be to take as much melee characters as you can possibly cram into an army and make sure to keep as much of them just behind the front wave and then have them go in and destroy it.

If we can't even shoot at them they are basically mini deathstars. They didn't get rid of deathstars they just spread it out over a huge area and made them even more strong and annoying.

I think this is the single worst rule they've previewed from a balance perspective. A simple penalty to shooting at them would have sufficed, but nope. Has to be invincibility. Stronger than any other factions previewed stuff.

 streetsamurai wrote:

As for your first phrase, don't you know that for a few posters on Dakka, anything else than unbridled enthusiasm and praise is considered as an insulting criticism?

Yes, indeed, Dakka Dakka is not a Hive Mind but is in fact a community of diverse individuals that have a lot of differing opinions.

Moving on...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:

He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.

Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.

Veterans with Sniper Rifles are a fair option if you don't want to run Ratlings too. Plus some of them look pretty good:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I think it is a pretty large assumption that rules are being oriented toward expediency at the cost of fun/quality. Now some changes may end up that way for some people, but that has been true of every edition with rules, and it has been done to no gain as often as not. I cannot think of any rules where a particular change is measurably less "fun" or "lower quality", only areas where some people have a preference for the way things have always been.

The most complained about things I've seen are
Loss of Armor values - this seems to be a balance thing more than a speed thing. GW has obviously had issues balancing vehicles with respect to other units for a long time.

Everything wounds everything - not a change for expedience at all, actually slows the game down by allowing attacks where none existed before. This is a change for "fun"/interactivity. Now if you don't like it, that has nothing to do with whether it was made as a decision to make the game faster at the expense of fun.

Morale - this speeds things up by testing fewer times per turn, it also makes morale much more meaningful than the all or nothing game we have now. Whether it is fun or of lower quality is again opinion. Some people like it some don't, which is true of every rule.

Largely complaints are "I liked the way things were, regarding x and am unhappy it changed." Or " I think a better solution existed to y problem." The game is far from perfect but always has been. But it does not seem to me that the playtester bias is pushing toward speed at the cost of fun specifically. Knowing what I do about the playtesters the largest bias I'm aware or is against deathstar units. So in that manor if you like deathstars seeing them made weaker may upset you.

Fully agree 10,000%. There are definitely changes that roll the speed of the game both ways. Fluff was rolled back for balance, and speed was rolled back for fluff. The game is looking like they tried to strike a balance between balance, speed and fluff and I approve!

Yup, I think that where they tried to gain speed will hopefully be in several areas

1.) Pre-game rolling - no more random psychic powers (hopefully WL traits etc.)
2.) Hopefully fewer re-rolls
3.) Reducing number of rolls a bit
4.) Reducing the number of times per turn you move models - currently you can move models in every single phase, now it is only Move, charge, and pile ins. Pile-ins also have been cleaned up as I step pile in no longer matters so you only pile-in each unit once per turn.
5.) Combat no longer having an I step - this can speed things up if desired, but doesn't necessarily do so. It definitely will mean less dice are rolled in general.

Instead of Deathstars they've made a Death Armada.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm guessing that 11 wounds won't be a common wound count. And for those who have over 10 will likely have other rules to help protect them (low number saves, high toughness, wargear that makes them harder to hit, ect). I'd be willing to bet some will even have rules to regenerate lost wounds, or limit the number of wounds they take (like the Stone Skeleton in AoS). If those models aren't able to withstand some punishment from dedicated firepower I'd be frankly shocked. Especially since that would be one of the first things people would be looking at in testing since you can't hide them in units anymore.

Yes they will likely have but you notice how again this ties up their hands with what kind of characters they CAN design? Forget creating 11W character unless you also give him tons of survivability in other words. Something like T8 2+ save is practically paper if he's worth any decent amount of points and has 11W.

Top of that there's no real benefit from having that triggered by W count rather than say...keyword. You remember presumably all models will have those? So not like they really need new mechanism for that.

Now we instead will have situation where it's more valuable to have 8 wounds than say 14 wounds...Which feels unintuitive. And again limits what they can do with new models.

It's minor issue but it results in unintuitive system and they had perfect system of having same effect without that unintuitive side effect AND give themselves more flexibility for future. For no cost whatsoever. There's literally no drawback in having it in keyword rather than on wounds as same models could still be targeted either way!

Just thought about someting... If Suddenly HQ dont need to join squads to provide buffs, space marine HQ's of various types equipped with jump-packs may have become the next auto include... Given that they will be able to cover ground fast and wil be able to move through intervening models.

 Crimson wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:

He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.

Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.

That's not the point in question, at least when it's coming from me, though.

My point in regards to Ratlings and Rough Riders is not that "I don't like people having fun with things they own" but rather I would have gotten a newly designed unit that actually addressed some of the issues in play.

Ratlings, to me, have felt shoehorned into being the Guard equivalent of the "Scout-y unit with Sniper Rifles" when it really could/should have actually been an option for Veteran Squads. Or an Elite option ala the Detachment 99 Sniper Teams(a spotter with a NV scope that had special rules and a sniper working in tandem) rather than snipers for Guard being limited to Special Weapon Teams(where it's effectively the D99 setup just without the special rules that actually make the D99 Sniper Teams something you might consider taking) or models in squads tacked in there.
Ratlings could have been a far more interesting unit than they are currently, given that a big part of their lore is that they are the cooks and effectively quartermasters of the Regiment. Think Jokaero in terms of things that the Ratlings could have been given.

And Rough Riders? They're just a mess. I posted an idea in another thread as to how I would redesign the unit, but they currently suffer from a mixture of issues.
a) Fluff. They're either described as being part of a regiment(Death Korps and Tallarn) or as a separate regiment in and of themselves(The Attilan Rough Riders). Removing the "Rough Riders" label and instead doing "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" would solve some of those issues.
b) Competitive slot. They're part of Fast Attack meaning they compete with the Hellhound variants, Sentinel variants, and Valkyrie variants.
c) Role. They're a counter-charge unit(supposedly) that isn't really built for counter-charging, and what's more isn't really built for close combat in general.

That's why, personally, I would rather see Rough Riders removed. Ratlings I'm ambivalent on. I would rather see alternative sniper unit options than Ratlings pushed to the fore.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/09/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-astra-militarum/

Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.

Now THAT is faction focus article that is actually more than just marketing speech.

Also one point regarding character rules. Overall I have no big issue with it(the loss of cinematics is sad but something's got to go). Mechanically there's one issue I have with it though it's minor one. Basically the gap between 10th and 11th wound is big. As it is now getting that 11th wound is huge drawback. Characters probably will prefer having 10 wounds over 16! And it intuitivitely feels WRONG being punished by having extra wounds...

Also it removes some flexibility as you can't have small character that should be able to hide with say 12 wounds. Albeit no character like that exists now(I think no character fits that description) but it does limit potential for new models.

Since they have keywords now feel this would have been good place to do it on keywords. Negative effect keywords isn't anything weird so having negative keyword that prevents hiding for heroes would be quite doable and would make more wounds be always good. And remove that artificial 10->11 wound gap that's going to be killer. I mean it feels odd you have 11 wound model and say 6 wound model with otherwise equal and have the 11 wound one be cheaper...

Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable

Disagree on it being automatically labeled as "bad design" with no insight on the sort of rules will be involved. That's like seeing a single cloud in the sky and complaining that it's hailing: you're jumping the gun with the worst possible interpretation. Sure it's useful to keep your expectations low, but is it really contributing anything to the discussion to look at a new mechanic and just go "looks like gak" without getting a chance to use it?

I'm guessing that 11 wounds won't be a common wound count. And for those who have over 10 will likely have other rules to help protect them (low number saves, high toughness, wargear that makes them harder to hit, ect). I'd be willing to bet some will even have rules to regenerate lost wounds, or limit the number of wounds they take (like the Stone Skeleton in AoS). If those models aren't able to withstand some punishment from dedicated firepower I'd be frankly shocked. Especially since that would be one of the first things people would be looking at in testing since you can't hide them in units anymore.

It is bad design cause it makes no sense thematically, restrict the rule creation process, and can cause a tonload of problem. For example, if a cerrtain spell give more wound to a character for a turn, the character in question might pass the 10 wounds threshold, and suddenly become targetable. And it restrict the creation of small-medium character with 10 wounds or more, and the creation of large characters with less than 10.

Using a keyword simply would have been a much better solution.

 Gamgee wrote:
Well unless the Tau have received a huge overhall the meta against them will be to take as much melee characters as you can possibly cram into an army and make sure to keep as much of them just behind the front wave and then have them go in and destroy it.

If we can't even shoot at them they are basically mini deathstars. They didn't get rid of deathstars they just spread it out over a huge area and made them even more strong and annoying.

I think this is the single worst rule they've previewed from a balance perspective. A simple penalty to shooting at them would have sufficed, but nope. Has to be invincibility. Stronger than any other factions previewed stuff.

This is false. The deathstars were rerollable 2+ for every puppy/screamer in the unit, or a tanking unit like Ghazghkull absorbing everything you throw at it. That is all gone.

Now you can just shoot the meatshields, which Tau is really good at, and pick off some of the characters with your big stuff. I'm surprised you're not thrilled at this, as this is a huge buff for Tau.

 Gamgee wrote:
Well unless the Tau have received a huge overhall the meta against them will be to take as much melee characters as you can possibly cram into an army and make sure to keep as much of them just behind the front wave and then have them go in and destroy it.

If we can't even shoot at them they are basically mini deathstars. They didn't get rid of deathstars they just spread it out over a huge area and made them even more strong and annoying.

I think this is the single worst rule they've previewed from a balance perspective. A simple penalty to shooting at them would have sufficed, but nope. Has to be invincibility. Stronger than any other factions previewed stuff.

So sniper drones don't exist? I mean it's not like Tau lacked options to snipe with, people just ignored them for markerligts, big robots and crisis suits. Now those options have merit and importance ina an army.

This is not a bad thing.

More varied unit selection to enforce balance is good.

Plus Tau character buffs will likely be auras too.

On the otherhand Orks have no snipers unless your opponent is playing the Celestial Lions chapter...