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.

Eyjio wrote:

 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.

+1
I'm tired of these incessant arguments, ruins the thread.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

True. True. That was also 3 years ago now and that quite a bit has changed wouldn't you say?

If I had told you back then that GW would have a community page, free core and unit rules, and a twitch channel...would you have laughed at how preposterous it sounded?

Exarchs would be treated the same way champions are in AoS. Since, exarchs in all previous editions couldn't leave their unit that makes them nothing more then sergeants.

Example of that is in the white lions:



That pretty much says one guy is the leader of the squad. I would assume the complex dataslate allows the exarch to take special equipment.

I know it took me an embarassingly large amount of time to realize that the 40k community website wasn't just some dude's rumor blog

Youn wrote:
Exarchs would be treated the same way champions are in AoS. Since, exarchs in all previous editions couldn't leave their unit that makes them nothing more then sergeants.

Example of that is in the white lions:

Spoiler:

GUARDIAN
The leader of this unit is a Guardian. A
Guardian makes 3 attacks rather than 2.

That pretty much says one guy is the leader of the squad. I would assume the complex dataslate allows the exarch to take special equipment.

Maybe. The wording for the Kroot Shaper example makes it seem like he effects units outside his own.

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

Wow, since literally nothing you've ever said has ever even approached being correct then we must be the most intelligent bunch of people on the planet!

So getting back on track, I think my comment got lost a few pages back:

 Galef wrote:
What I think will be interesting to see which characters retain the "character" keyword.

Currently Wraithlords and DreadKnights are characters and judging from the profile of the Dreadnaught and Guiliman, neither is likely to exceed 10 wounds.
I'd be willing to bet that both lose the 'character' keyword, otherwise it will be ridiculously easy to game the system and keep them hidden.
-

Although if WLs kept the character keyword, it would make them potentially usable again. And fluffy to have them walk near some Wraithguard/blades

-

 Galef wrote:
So getting back on track, I think my comment got lost a few pages back:

 Galef wrote:
What I think will be interesting to see which characters retain the "character" keyword.

Currently Wraithlords and DreadKnights are characters and judging from the profile of the Dreadnaught and Guiliman, neither is likely to exceed 10 wounds.
I'd be willing to bet that both lose the 'character' keyword, otherwise it will be ridiculously easy to game the system and keep them hidden.

-

I expect to see a lot of the "character for everyone" dialed back. I think it was over-generously handed out for challenges.

The personal attacks need to stop.

We're talking about a game of toy soldiers here. If you can't do that in a civil fashion, I would recommend finding somewhere else to spend your time. This thread is clunky enough without clogging it up with that nonsense.

 Galef wrote:
So getting back on track, I think my comment got lost a few pages back:

 Galef wrote:
What I think will be interesting to see which retain the "character" keyword.

Currently Wraithlords and DreadKnights are and judging from the profile of the Dreadnaught and Guiliman, neither is likely to exceed 10 wounds.
I'd be willing to bet that both lose the 'character' keyword, otherwise it will be ridiculously easy to game the system and keep them hidden.

-

I'm pretty sure wraithlords nor dreadknights are NOT characters.

 daedalus wrote:

I expect to see a lot of the "character for everyone" dialed back. I think it was over-generously handed out for challenges.

Indeed. I would expect that Wraithlords and Dreadknights would both lose it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

I'm pretty sure wraithlords nor dreadknights are NOT characters.

They're not Independent Characters, but they gained Character in the latest iterations of their respective codexes, IIRC, so that they could join in the 'fun' of Challenges.



Most likely scenario will be as suggested just up aways - Anyone with 'Character' will lose it, and 'Independent Characters' will just become 'Characters'...

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

I will agree that this a something that creates a bit of a red flag for GW, not being able to headshot characters until you've killed everything in front of them means that designing characters is always going to be on a bit of a knifes edge as far as balance is concerned. It is mitigated somewhat by melee characters not getting as much protection out of it unless in a totally melee centric army and the higher overall speed of many armies, but it is a level of nuance that GW has not handled well in the past.

This is a wait and see for me that I think will ultimately come down to whether or not reece, frankie, and the other playtesters had enough time to properly abuse this rule and whether GW took appropriate feedback.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

GW isnt going it alone this time though, they're getting input/testing from top tournament organizers and players. If anyone would find something to weasle using the rules, it would be them

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

GW isnt going it alone this time though, they're getting input/testing from top tournament organizers and players. If anyone would find something to weasle using the rules, it would be them

+1

Further they seem to be open to the idea of admitting mistakes so that they can be fixed this time. So the stuff that does get past the playtesting (and stuff will) can at least be raged against constructively instead of just using the yelling wall like we've had to in the past.

ERJAK wrote:

I will agree that this a something that creates a bit of a red flag for GW, not being able to headshot characters until you've killed everything in front of them means that designing characters is always going to be on a bit of a knifes edge as far as balance is concerned. It is mitigated somewhat by melee characters not getting as much protection out of it unless in a totally melee centric army and the higher overall speed of many armies, but it is a level of nuance that GW has not handled well in the past..

I'm actually more concerned that it will go the other way - they'll be designing characters around the idea that they're effectively invulnerable to enemy shooting, when in practice people very quickly just get used to setting up screens or using terrain to snipe characters at will. So the end result is characters being much more fragile than they should be.

 insaniak wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

I expect to see a lot of the "character for everyone" dialed back. I think it was over-generously handed out for challenges.

Indeed. I would expect that Wraithlords and Dreadknights would both lose it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

I'm pretty sure wraithlords nor dreadknights are NOT characters.

They're not Independent Characters, but they gained Character in the latest iterations of their respective codexes, IIRC, so that they could join in the 'fun' of Challenges.



Most likely scenario will be as suggested just up aways - Anyone with 'Character' will lose it, and 'Independent Characters' will just become 'Characters'...

Actually, both had "Character" prior to challenges being introduced to 40K, so it had nothing to do with challenges then.
But I agree that DKs will likely lose it. Wraithlords, being LORDS afterall, might actually keep 'character'. The model isn't as big as it used to appear, being no bigger than a Tau Broadside or Canoptek Wraith.

I would like it if Wraithlords stayed characters with say a 9" Move. At their current price point (or equivalent for 8th) they might be decent finally.

-

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

GW isnt going it alone this time though, they're getting input/testing from top tournament organizers and players. If anyone would find something to weasle using the rules, it would be them

Yup... and they've done that before, too. What happens in practice is that they listen to the feedback for exactly as long as it fits what they want to hear, and just ignore it the rest of the time.

It's certainly possible that they're doing it differently this time (and feedback from AoS players does seem to indicate that this is in evidence) but right now it feels a little bit like Lucy holding that football.

So long as everyone doesn't have a screaming fit and engages NuGW politely about any broken elements, they're showing willingness to respond to player feedback these days. Enough people write in, stuff could get changed.

Some of the stuff in this thread typifies why they haven't listened in the past, tbh.

The fact I have an entire squad of Deathwatch with Stalker Patter Boltguns just got juicier. Also, I can't wait to stick a Vindicare Assassin on the field. Sniper weapons are going to be fun.

I still worry about the transport issue. Hopefully I will still be able to run Pedro Kantor inside a Land Raider with a squad of Terminators or Centurions. I hope his +1 Attack to his Squad becomes +1 Attack in a 12" bubble.

I have three Squads of Sniper Scouts. I guess two will go to my Crimson Fists and one will go to my Blood Angels. And here I was hoping I would have a reason to run Tactical Squads instead of Scouts. That's unfortunate.

 davou wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

GW isnt going it alone this time though, they're getting input/testing from top tournament organizers and players. If anyone would find something to weasle using the rules, it would be them

+1

Further they seem to be open to the idea of admitting mistakes so that they can be fixed this time. So the stuff that does get past the playtesting (and stuff will) can at least be raged against constructively instead of just using the yelling wall like we've had to in the past.

These are very reasonable fears and very reasonable hopes. Honestly, the new 40k and the soon to follow codecies will show us whether GW has actually turned a new leaf, or if it is all PR.

Personally, I find Blood Bowl to be their best balanced game- and the Blood Bowl rules set was achieved through some very strong player feedback (in the end, they got a group of fans outside of GW to update their rulebook).

Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.

Cosmic Schwung wrote:
Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.

I sincerely hope they allow characters to ride in transports with units. I don't think multiple units should be able to ride in one transport though.

Cosmic Schwung wrote:
Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.

At the very least I would expect transports to allow a unit and a character. Probably won't go as far as multiple units beyond that.

 insaniak wrote:

Cosmic Schwung wrote:
Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.

At the very least I would expect transports to allow a unit and a character. Probably won't go as far as multiple units beyond that.

I would think so considering iirc one of the answers to a tanky character question was to put them in a tank.

While it feels alien is there any reason why transports carrying two small squads would break the game?

Tyel wrote:
While it feels alien is there any reason why transports carrying two small squads would break the game?

Not that I can think of.

Tyel wrote:
While it feels alien is there any reason why transports carrying two small squads would break the game?

It's a points-for-effect issue.

A transport vehicle is effectively some extra protection and an enhanced movement for a given points investment. So when you pay, say, 50 points for a transport, you're paying 50 points to give a unit the ability to move faster and gain some protection from enemy shooting.

If you can put two units in that one transport, all of a sudden you're paying the same points cost, but two separate units are benefiting from it at the same time... something that in the current system you would need to pay twice for.


Of course, in the current game where armies potentially have access to an entire free motorpool, that seems somewhat of an irrelevant point... but it's something that should be considered in the game design.

 insaniak wrote:

Cosmic Schwung wrote:
Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.

At the very least I would expect transports to allow a unit and a character. Probably won't go as far as multiple units beyond that.

Maybe it will be on a model and not unit basis?

 insaniak wrote:

Tyel wrote:
While it feels alien is there any reason why transports carrying two small squads would break the game?

It's a points-for-effect issue.

A transport vehicle is effectively some extra protection and an enhanced movement for a given points investment. So when you pay, say, 50 points for a transport, you're paying 50 points to give a unit the ability to move faster and gain some protection from enemy shooting.

If you can put two units in that one transport, all of a sudden you're paying the same points cost, but two separate units are benefiting from it at the same time... something that in the current system you would need to pay twice for.


Of course, in the current game where armies potentially have access to an entire free motorpool, that seems somewhat of an irrelevant point... but it's something that should be considered in the game design.

Then, they should made the vehicle exploding more deadly to the units inside, to made it a more risk-management decission.

Put all your eggs in one basket, style of thing.
And, having less transports just makes to your opponent more easy to stop your army. They only need to kill one transport to make two of your units lose it, for example.

 Galef wrote:

Actually, both had "Character" prior to challenges being introduced to 40K, so it had nothing to do with challenges then.
But I agree that DKs will likely lose it. Wraithlords, being LORDS afterall, might actually keep 'character'. The model isn't as big as it used to appear, being no bigger than a Tau Broadside or Canoptek Wraith.

Technically true for GK, but remember that the 5th ed GK codex was the last one before the release of 6th. They HAD to know what was coming, and I'd suspect that they designed it with that advance knowledge, especially since Ward was on the design team for both (from what I recall).

I don't remember "character" actually meaning anything in 5th ed, but that was many, many beers ago, so who knows..