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.

 labmouse42 wrote:
I'd bet a doughnut that DPs have 12 wounds.

I'll take that bet.

 docdoom77 wrote:
Just had to whip this lil guy up:

And where are my human bombs??

I'm hoping the appearance of Tzaangors in 40k means more beastmen (or other mutated Chaos lackeys) are on the way. Always wanted to build a unit of Bloodgors after reading Vraks volume 2...

 EnTyme wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
I'd bet a doughnut that DPs have 12 wounds.

I'll take that bet.

LOL!

So, chocolate, glazed, or Homer Simpson sprinkles style?

 insaniak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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?

That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?

Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?

Because it's a single Guardsman, and there are better targets for the rest of your shooting?

You can split your shooting the way you want, and boltguns can have a radius that covers to thirds of the board. Send 4-5 boltguns and call it a day.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Then instead of the rules saying "Character models with 10 or fewer wounds can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest", it says "Character models can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest target or have the Large keyword".

Because it's much cleaner to just give that model a rule saying "this model ignores the usual rules for targeting characters," rather than incorporate a keyword into the core rules- where it effectively becomes a USR.

Well, yes. That's probably an even better solution, depending on how common a situation it is. But I thought the discussion was about whether or not the ability to target characters should be based on number of wounds or something else.

 andysonic1 wrote:
I can feel myself getting dumber the longer this argument goes on. Please for the love of god take it somewhere else. There is nothing wrong with the system they are putting into place as long as they stay true to that system. If they deviant from it for a handful of models I don't think it will break the game, however if an entire army starts changing the rules then we have an issue. Until any of that happens there is literally no problem.

But we need something to talk about until tomorrow!

At this rate, I feel like it won't take long for Games Workshop to go back to not revealing things in advance and not communicating with their customers.

I find it depressing that people will complain about models that we don't even have the rules for. I find it even more baffling that people are complaining about the rules for hypothetical models that don't even exist in the game.

I guess there are optimists and pessimists in the world and then there are some people who just want to watch the world burn.

 nintura wrote:
The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.

But under this system, the wounds are probably roughly based on the size of the model. Things you describe wouldn't have the stats you assume. The tall bug would have 11+ wounds, but not so awesome toughness or save, while the smaller superbug would have ten or less wounds but good toughness and save.

I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.

I think it is a result of a broader and longer in the making trend where a number of factors have caused the general public to become cynical and disillusioned when dealing with any establishment wanting to advertise something. A company willing to be snarky and a little rude shows that they are at least broadly aware of the (arguably healthy) cynicism present in the minds of their customers and accepting partially that the model of ernest (and perceptibly naive) positive and sterile professionalism established by 1950s salesmen comes off less as reputable and more as those companies, and by extension, the people working for them not being in touch with the culture of the people they sell to. This works the other way up and in the opposite direction, though too. The Wendys twitter handle being so smug all the time says, on the surface that Wendys is comfortable just letting any 20 year old intern have complete control of the corporate twitter handle. I would find it hard to believe at least initially that the middle aged executives working for Wendys corporate could have come up with this themselves, mostly on account of not being 20 year old interns anymore themselves. But they clearly were pleased with the results of such behavior, or they wouldn't have let it keep going as long as it has. This is actually a really interesting topic to discuss academically in the context of branding and company image. In the same way that no social media platform ever has, or ever will experience the same success as Facebook, I would not be surprised if other companies try this and only see mediocre results compared to Wendys.

 lessthanjeff wrote:
At this rate, I feel like it won't take long for Games Workshop to go back to not revealing things in advance and not communicating with their customers.

I find it depressing that people will complain about models that we don't even have the rules for. I find it even more baffling that people are complaining about the rules for hypothetical models that don't even exist in the game.

I guess there are optimists and pessimists in the world and then there are some people who just want to watch the world burn.

But it MIGHT exist in the game at some point. After all, Games Workshop can't really control what Games Workshop does, so what if Games Workshop puts something into the game that Games Workshop didn't see coming? Particularly since they're only developing one codex after another and totally not working on everything at once. Why, and since they'd never be able to publish errata or change the game in any way, they'd be doomed! Doomed I say!

No, they better fix this now. They should also let wounds be non-numerical values, including but not limited to colors and the ampersand symbol. Terrible system otherwise.

 EnTyme wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
I'd bet a doughnut that DPs have 12 wounds.

I'll take that bet.

Sweet. I hope I'm wrong. I live in New England. If you are in this neck of the woods, and you win, I'll be happy to buy you one.

I'd offer to ship one, but it would be stale when it got there. Not as tasty.

Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them

 Powerfisting wrote:


I think it is a result of a broader and longer in the making trend where a number of factors have caused the general public to become cynical and disillusioned when dealing with any establishment wanting to advertise something. A company willing to be snarky and a little rude shows that they are at least broadly aware of the (arguably healthy) cynicism present in the minds of their customers and accepting partially that the model of ernest (and perceptibly naive) positive and sterile professionalism established by 1950s salesmen comes off less as reputable and more as those companies, and by extension, the people working for them not being in touch with the culture of the people they sell to. This works the other way up and in the opposite direction, though too. The Wendys twitter handle being so smug all the time says, on the surface that Wendys is comfortable just letting any 20 year old intern have complete control of the corporate twitter handle. I would find it hard to believe at least initially that the middle aged executives working for Wendys corporate could have come up with this themselves, mostly on account of not being 20 year old interns anymore themselves. But they clearly were pleased with the results of such behavior, or they wouldn't have let it keep going as long as it has. This is actually a really interesting topic to discuss academically in the context of branding and company image. In the same way that no social media platform ever has, or ever will experience the same success as Facebook, I would not be surprised if other companies try this and only see mediocre results compared to Wendys.

It's more "real". You feel like you're talking to an actual person with feelings instead of a corporate robot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them

Sure that's it. We're just stupid drones. Anyway - moving on.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them

This is you right now:


Not everyone who disagrees with your opinion is an idiot, nor is everyone praising this change a yes man. Take the chip off your shoulder and try not to insult people next time.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them

Please, this "Is totally okay if people just don't like stuff. They are totally free to say that the game is completely worthless", but "If people just like something, is because they lack critical thinking and are like sheeps, inmature and just stupid" need to end.

I understand, the haters vs fanboys is a very heated debate. But we'll come to a better end if we stop putting on high horses, be it to call others "sheeps" or say that they just hate everything all the time.

 Galas wrote:


Please, this "Is totally okay if people just don't like stuff. They are totally free to say that the game is completely worthless", but "If people just like something, is because they lack critical thinking and are like sheeps, inmature and just stupid" need to end.

I understand, the haters vs fanboys is a very heated debate. But we'll come to a better end if we stop putting on high horses, be it to call others "sheeps" or say that they just hate everything all the time.

Alas, I have but one exalt to give.

I can't be bothered reading another 15 pages of potentially off topic rambling, so apologies if this has already been said, but I just wanted to say I am loving the changes to ICs only buffing certain units etc.
Also in the Imperial Guard faction focus, they said snipers can target characters, snipers just got a whole lot more useful/cool!

I wonder why those that make the " hater always gonna hate"accusation get so offended when the reverse accusation is made toward them. You should be willing to take what you dish.

Btw, lacking critical thinking skills doesnt make someone an idiot.

If you want to discuss things that are different from the topic, please go to general discussion.

 Crimson wrote:

 nintura wrote:
The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.

But under this system, the wounds are probably roughly based on the size of the model. Things you describe wouldn't have the stats you assume. The tall bug would have 11+ wounds, but not so awesome toughness or save, while the smaller superbug would have ten or less wounds but good toughness and save.

I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.

I've been optimistic about 8ed so far and still am. But that may be a little much to say before we have all of the rules. There are a bunch of red flags that will only be apparent when the full rules are released that will indicate how well GW understands the implications of more nuanced rules like this theoretical paradigm where having 11+ wounds is actually a downside. I'm hopeful. I may actually be quite naive. We won't know until we have more information, but GW has proved in the past that they are able to make it look like they've changed and then not really changed. They have also surprised us with actually changing for the better. Time will tell, but I think its early to definitively say they know what they are doing, or even weather or not they have good intentions.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them

Don't be so hard on yourself! I've recently learned our brains are improving all the time - just like 40K these days!

 Rippy wrote:
I can't be bothered reading another 15 pages of potentially off topic rambling, so apologies if this has already been said, but I just wanted to say I am loving the changes to ICs only buffing certain units etc.
Also in the Imperial Guard faction focus, they said snipers can target characters, snipers just got a whole lot more useful/cool!

I am curious to see if it will be worthwhile to stick RG in a guard blob to keep him safe (supported by a commissar so they don't melt) instead of having him with marines. I would imagine his buffs to marines will be too hard to ignore and guard too flimsy a frontline unit.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I can't be bothered reading another 15 pages of potentially off topic rambling, so apologies if this has already been said, but I just wanted to say I am loving the changes to ICs only buffing certain units etc.
Also in the Imperial Guard faction focus, they said snipers can target characters, snipers just got a whole lot more useful/cool!

I am curious to see if it will be worthwhile to stick RG in a guard blob to keep him safe (supported by a commissar so they don't melt) instead of having him with marines. I would imagine his buffs to marines will be too hard to ignore and guard too flimsy a frontline unit.

Maybe he'll buff guardsmen too. He's is kinda the big man on campus for the Imperium, after all, not just SM.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:


I think it is a result of a broader and longer in the making trend where a number of factors have caused the general public to become cynical and disillusioned when dealing with any establishment wanting to advertise something. A company willing to be snarky and a little rude shows that they are at least broadly aware of the (arguably healthy) cynicism present in the minds of their customers and accepting partially that the model of ernest (and perceptibly naive) positive and sterile professionalism established by 1950s salesmen comes off less as reputable and more as those companies, and by extension, the people working for them not being in touch with the culture of the people they sell to. This works the other way up and in the opposite direction, though too. The Wendys twitter handle being so smug all the time says, on the surface that Wendys is comfortable just letting any 20 year old intern have complete control of the corporate twitter handle. I would find it hard to believe at least initially that the middle aged executives working for Wendys corporate could have come up with this themselves, mostly on account of not being 20 year old interns anymore themselves. But they clearly were pleased with the results of such behavior, or they wouldn't have let it keep going as long as it has. This is actually a really interesting topic to discuss academically in the context of branding and company image. In the same way that no social media platform ever has, or ever will experience the same success as Facebook, I would not be surprised if other companies try this and only see mediocre results compared to Wendys.

It's more "real". You feel like you're talking to an actual person with feelings instead of a corporate robot.

That's the word I was looking for! thanks for summarizing my paragraph of ranting in one line.

About the "10 wounds threshold:" if there's a model with 10 or less wounds that shouldn't be able to hide, then couldn't they just not make that guy a character in their rules? Which models fall into all of the following: 1) must be a character, 2) can't have more than 10 wounds, and 3) despite that shouldn't be able to cower behind infantry?

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
About the "10 wounds threshold:" if there's a model with 10 or less wounds that shouldn't be able to hide, then couldn't they just not make that guy a character in their rules? Which models fall into all of the following: 1) must be a character, 2) can't have more than 10 wounds, and 3) despite that shouldn't be able to cower behind infantry?

But some of them are characters, and imagine the screeching on the forums if someone's favorite character no longer had the word "character" in their profile!

I would like to see a little more clarity on the character rules. Specifically I would love to know more about the distinctions between Characters and Independent Characters.

I understand that it's possible (or was historically possible) to take troop/elite selections without including a character, but as an Eldar player the very notion of taking a group of Striking Scorpions and not including an Exarch baffles me.

This leaves so much in the air for me. is the Exarch going to be treated differently because it's a Character? This compounds with all the other changes that will so heavily affect that unit.

Eldar are the high initiative faction - with initiative being completely gone that leaves me feeling pretty vulnerable, and also detracts from the value of things like the Scorpions Claw, which was only really ever used because it was a PF that wasn't unwieldy and therefore didn't drop your initiative. Now, that Exarch was insanely pricey - he was almost the cost of a whole squad of his peers, but his synergy with the ruleset made him worthwhile (on the odd days when he actually made it into CC).

Not knowing what they are replacing those critical game elements with is torture because it's so crucial to my entire lineup.

The tension... I don't like it!

 Crimson wrote:

I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.

For 6th/7th ed, they created a system that allowed people to create insane deathstars and were surprised when people used it to create insane deathstars... So I wouldn't count on that.

From the way I read it, characters are no longer a thing, and independent characters are just characters now.

 En Excelsis wrote:
I would like to see a little more clarity on the character rules. Specifically I would love to know more about the distinctions between Characters and Independent Characters.

I understand that it's possible (or was historically possible) to take troop/elite selections without including a character, but as an Eldar player the very notion of taking a group of Striking Scorpions and not including an Exarch baffles me.

This leaves so much in the air for me. is the Exarch going to be treated differently because it's a Character? This compounds with all the other changes that will so heavily affect that unit.

Eldar are the high initiative faction - with initiative being completely gone that leaves me feeling pretty vulnerable, and also detracts from the value of things like the Scorpions Claw, which was only really ever used because it was a PF that wasn't unwieldy and therefore didn't drop your initiative. Now, that Exarch was insanely pricey - he was almost the cost of a whole squad of his peers, but his synergy with the ruleset made him worthwhile (on the odd days when he actually made it into CC).

Not knowing what they are replacing those critical game elements with is torture because it's so crucial to my entire lineup.

The tension... I don't like it!

Take a peek at some AoS Slaanesh models. There are many ways for them to bring speed to a unit without using initiative.