40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**Kanluwen**

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

Unfortunately, it isn't the same thing.

If you're wanting to field a full unit of snipers, the only Guard option currently is Ratlings.
Veterans and Special Weapon Squads can only take 3 models with Sniper Rifles.

**Daedalus81**

tneva82 wrote:

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!

It doesn't limit anything as long as their effectiveness is commensurate with cost.

**Vaktathi**

davou wrote:
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.

this was very common in 4E, IC's zipping around on their own with jump packs and jetbikes because they couldnt be targeted.

**tneva82**

streetsamurai wrote:
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.

Well the spell thing probably doesn't affect. After all getting wounds reduced in game doesn't make you untargetable.

But other points yeah that's what the issue is. It's not broken but it results in unintuitive system where midwounds is actually more valuable and restricts future options leading to more samey(and GW has already reduced lots of ranges they have. Dice results 2 and 6 are very underutilized for example).

If keyword had some negative I could see but it has...zero drawbacks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
It doesn't limit anything as long as their effectiveness is commensurate with cost.

Yes it does. Or how you suggests they create smallish sized model(ie something that you can't snipe) with say 15 wounds? You don't.

With keyword you apply keyword(or don't put depending does keyword allow you to hide or be targeted) and put 15 wounds.

Seriously why you even try to defend that? Guess you just defend everything GW does even when it's obvious it's not defendable. There is ZERO drawback to having this on keyword. None whatsoever. But there's drawbacks in having it on wounds.

**Vitali Advenil**

Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.

**tneva82**

Not covered yet but I'll be surprised if transports don't work like they do in AOS.

**jamopower**

How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?

**Vitali Advenil**

tneva82 wrote:
Not covered yet but I'll be surprised if transports don't work like they do in AOS.

I was mostly wondering how they work since I know next to nothing about AoS.

**Kanluwen**

Vitali Advenil wrote:
Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.

Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.

Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.

**streetsamurai**

Daedalus81 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

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

Using a fictive but but plausible example to show the limitation of a rule is not a strawman

**daedalus**

tneva82 wrote:

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.

I don't understand why you think that.

**ClockworkZion**

Gamgee wrote:
Instead of Deathstars they've made a Death Armada.

No, just a Deathwing.

Re: keyword to determine who can hide and who can't:
I have a feeling much of this may follow the same logic that they already are. I mean Magnus is 3x taller than RG and has at least four more wounds to match. The models who are likely going to have more han ten wounds are likely to be biiger than RG. I mean R G oukd at least take a knee to gain some over, what can Magnus do amongst most armies?

It might not even be a character specific rule but one that applies to all models. If so, it creates target priorities and allows those melee units to better screen their important stuff.

Right now it's too early to tell the fll scope of this so I withhold judgement on its quality of use. It's functional and I don't currently see any major issue with it. In the future I may change my mind.

Oh, and since AoS doesn't have penatlies for shooting sooping models a winged Daemon Prince looks like he gained some protection. Neat.

**Breng77**

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.

Depends on a lot of things, can you kill the bubble wrap protecting them? How does supporting fire function in the new edition? Will wargear exist that allows some units to target characters....until we have all the faction rules it is impossible to know. Maybe it will turn out that characters are terrible against Tau tech.

**JimOnMars**

jamopower wrote:
How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?

I feel sorry for the characters that get exactly 10 wounds. It's almost as if GW has put a "kick me" sign on their backs.

**lessthanjeff**

tneva82 wrote:

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!

I'm skeptical it would be that bad to have 10 or 11 wounds because we've been playing the game with models that had far less wounds but couldn't join units already. It seems like the guys that will have more than 10 wounds will be things that were considered solo units already like a carnifex or a daemon prince. If Guilliman didn't pass the threshold for not being allowed to hide, then I can't think of any character that was able to join units in the past but would have more wounds than him.

If they give a new character 11 wounds it seems like they'd still be better off to me than the numerous monstrous creatures and walkers that we've been playing with.

**ClockworkZion**

Kanluwen wrote:
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

Unfortunately, it isn't the same thing.

If you're wanting to field a full unit of snipers, the only Guard option currently is Ratlings.
Veterans and Special Weapon Squads can only take 3 models with Sniper Rifles.

And the other models in the unit can split fire a other targets instead of solely being ablative wounds.

**Vitali Advenil**

Kanluwen wrote:
Vitali Advenil wrote:
Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.

Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.

Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.

My wonder is if ICs can embark on transports that already have another unit on it. Otherwise, they'd need to bring their own transport. For orks, I guess this is fine since we have 35 point transports, but it still seems a bit tough on armies with more expensive transports.

**streetsamurai**

For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?

**Galas**

Vitali Advenil wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Vitali Advenil wrote:
Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.

Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.

Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.

My wonder is if ICs can embark on transports that already have another unit on it. Otherwise, they'd need to bring their own transport. For orks, I guess this is fine since we have 35 point transports, but it still seems a bit tough on armies with more expensive transports.

AoS transport works based on models, not units.

So if a Transport can have 10 models with the "Adeptus Astartes" keyword, for example, you can put two squads of 5 Space Marines on it. Or 1 squad of 5 models, other of 4 because it has lost one, and a Adeptus Astartes character.

**lessthanjeff**

JimOnMars wrote:
jamopower wrote:
How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
I feel sorry for the characters that get exactly 10 wounds. It's almost as if GW has put a "kick me" sign on their backs.

10 wound characters still get to hide. You hide if you have 10 or less wounds. Anything with 11+ wounds is probably going to be something that has been walking the game by himself already because of Monstrous Creature or Vehicle status. Look at Guilliman for reference. He has 9 and gets to hide and I can't think of another character that would have more wounds but should still be allowed to hide.

**Ghaz**

JimOnMars wrote:
jamopower wrote:
How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
I feel sorry for the characters that get exactly 10 wounds. It's almost as if GW has put a "kick me" sign on their backs.

Why is that, considering the article says the following...

To counter the fact that these Characters cannot join units and “hide” from enemy fire, there is a rule in the Shooting phase that means you can’t target a Character unless they are the closest enemy model. This represents the difficulty in picking out individuals amidst the maelstrom of battle and applies to all Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less...

**ClockworkZion**

jamopower wrote:
How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?

You lose the protection at 11 wounds, 10. That aside, we know that Magnus has over 12. We can be fairly certain that the Greater Daemons will likely follow their rules from AoS. What we don't know is if this shooting rule is only for characters, or all models.

**Vitali Advenil**

Galas wrote:
Vitali Advenil wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Vitali Advenil wrote:
Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.

Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.

Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.

My wonder is if ICs can embark on transports that already have another unit on it. Otherwise, they'd need to bring their own transport. For orks, I guess this is fine since we have 35 point transports, but it still seems a bit tough on armies with more expensive transports.

AoS transport works based on models, not units.

So if a Transport can have 10 models with the "Adeptus Astartes" keyword, for example, you can put two squads of 5 Space Marines on it. Or 1 squad of 5 models, other of 4 because it has lost one, and a Adeptus Astartes character.

Okay, that makes much more sense and gives a lot more options. I hope this is the path they go down.

**lessthanjeff**

streetsamurai wrote:
For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?

I suspect they're trying to reduce the number of keywords that they have to type up rules in other places for. As it is now, think how many pages are tied up with flipping through the pages of bikes, jetbikes, infantry, jetpacks, jump packs, monstrous creatures, independent character, transports, skimmers, etc. I've been under the impression they're trying to do away with references to external rules to reduce that kind of thing. All rules on the data sheet and what not.

**ClockworkZion**

JimOnMars wrote:
jamopower wrote:
How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
I feel sorry for the characters that get exactly 10 wounds. It's almost as if GW has put a "kick me" sign on their backs.

ten wounds or less can hide behind friendly models to gain protection.

**tneva82**

jamopower wrote:
How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?

Not many especially now but whatabout in future?

Thing is they would have lost NOTHING by putting it into keyword. There's no drawback whatsoever and this one has illogical side effects like wounds being actually detrimental. Assuming Magnus has say 16 wounds he would be better off by giving up 6 of those...That's pretty odd result. You get hurt by getting more wounds. Don't remember many games where you are worse off by having more wounds.

If there was drawback in having protection/deprotection by keyword sure but there isn't. So they made illogicality and hamstrung their choices for future for no benefit. That's not good game design.

**Kanluwen**

Vitali Advenil wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Vitali Advenil wrote:
Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.

Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.

Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.

My wonder is if ICs can embark on transports that already have another unit on it. Otherwise, they'd need to bring their own transport. For orks, I guess this is fine since we have 35 point transports, but it still seems a bit tough on armies with more expensive transports.

I'm going to direct you towards my answer again.

As long as the character has the same faction and the special rule "Skyfarer" they were allowed to embark upon the transport.

In AoS, every character is an IC effectively.

**ClockworkZion**

streetsamurai wrote:
For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?

I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.

**Formerly Wu**

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

The continued existence of Ratlings and Rough Riders hasn't stopped them from creating new units.

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.

I agree. I think there should be dedicated Guardsmen sniper teams as well as Ratlings, and Ratlings should be given some unique traits of their own. Shoot Sharp and Scarper is an attempt at that, but I think they could go further.

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.

a) I disagree; I think Rough Riders is a good generic name that covers multiple origins, while your suggestion pidgeonholes them a bit. Either way, it's pretty inconsequential to their role.
b) and c) Are both fixable issues, given that we're rebooting the whole rule set. Maybe give them a platoon option like stormtroopers, or more wargear options to suit their role.

All of that is pretty small beer issues compared to the idea of removing a classic unit and invalidating armies.

**labmouse42**

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.

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...

A poll was ran a few years ago asking that very question (along with a myriad of others) While some of the meta has changed since the poll was ran, other questions are fairly static.

Most of the players have played in and enjoyed competitive play.

Most players seem to think that organizations like the ITC add value to 40k.

Most players seem to think game balance and updating old rules are the most important things GW should be doing.