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.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Man, first people were mad that Roboute was a MC and could be shot up on his way over, and now people are mad that they gave him (and everyone else) survivability... smh

The obvious answer to this is...they aren't the same people?

 insaniak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Which is more realistic, thought you were all for that?

"Ok, men, we're here to protect the Lord Solar. Everyone in a line over here!"

"But, sarge, that unit of Havocs over there is circling around us... they'll have a clear shot at the Lord Solar from there!"

"Damnit... and we just moved over here. Can't change our formation until after they've taken their shot. Cross your fingers and hope they're bad shots, lads! We'll run over there in front of him when they're done!"



Yup, totally more realistic.

Yeah this is totally the only instance where the 'I go you go' turn sequence breaks the realism...

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

Yeah this is totally the only instance where the 'I go you go' turn sequence breaks the realism...

Of course it isn't. But it's one that is avoided when the IC can't be singled out.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Man, first people were mad that Roboute was a MC and could be shot up on his way over, and now people are mad that they gave him (and everyone else) survivability... smh

The obvious answer to this is...they aren't the same people?

By people I think he meant the Internet. I believe you are right also.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Which is more realistic, thought you were all for that?

"Ok, men, we're here to protect the Lord Solar. Everyone in a line over here!"

"But, sarge, that unit of Havocs over there is circling around us... they'll have a clear shot at the Lord Solar from there!"

"Damnit... and we just moved over here. Can't change our formation until after they've taken their shot. Cross your fingers and hope they're bad shots, lads! We'll run over there in front of him when they're done!"



Yup, totally more realistic.

Yeah this is totally the only instance where the 'I go you go' turn sequence breaks the realism...

That is hilarious. Though the dialogue could be changed to "Dang were too late!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forge the narrative!!

 insaniak wrote:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

Yeah this is totally the only instance where the 'I go you go' turn sequence breaks the realism...

Of course it isn't. But it's one that is avoided when the IC can't be singled out.

It's not really any less game-y than "you can't shoot the guy as all these other guys keep jumping in the way of bullets conveniently". They're both different types of "keep heroes alive" rule that are just there so heroes aren't point sinks that get sniped out, and we get to see them do cool stuff. It's all quite silly whichever way it's ruled! If reality was in play, of course you'd all shoot the guy with a back banner, cape and glowing sword instead of a dude with a rifle. But it's a game of heroes, so enabling them to get to do their cool stuff requires *some* form of artificial "keep em alive" rule.

 insaniak wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
Wait, you actually WANT your characters to lead from the front?

Yes...?

I play Orks. Characters need to be out in front where they can be assured of getting into combat. It's also more fluffy than having them lurking around at the back.

40K is essentially a fantasy game in space. Generals tend to be loud and ostentatious... For most races, characters are more likely to be found either right at the forefront of the charge, or standing up somewhere prominent waving and shouting in an inspiring fashion. The introduction of 6th ed's 'casualties from the front' casualty removal killed that stone cold dead.

Well, unless your character was the guy with the invulnerable save...

They already said characters can join nearby combats by walking into their own units, so there goes the mechanics issue. The fluffy issue is more personal preference. You could say you have an Ork leader who wants to lead the charge, and I could say I have an Ork leader who would rather soften up the target with some bodies first. For most races, from a fluff standpoint, characters are going to want to be in different areas of the battlefield given different circumstances. The fluff argument is an endless one.

I can totally understand the "Can't be targeted if they are near 3" of a friendly unit", to have the characters runing in front of the units. Thats much more cinematic.

But also, has 0 counterplay. You can try to encounter the manner and do tactics to allow you to snip the enemy hero, with fast moving units, etc...
If they only need to be near 3" of a friendly unit all comes down to... shoot ALL the units near the character down before being able to kill it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

It's not really any less game-y than "you can't shoot the guy as all these other guys keep jumping in the way of bullets conveniently". .

I never suggested that as an alternative, so I'm not sure how it's relevant.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

If they only need to be near 3" of a friendly unit all comes down to... shoot ALL the units near the character down before being able to kill it.

That would be preferable to 'I can shoot that character because I blocked my unit's LOS to his 'bodyguard' with this rhino...'

 insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

If they only need to be near 3" of a friendly unit all comes down to... shoot ALL the units near the character down before being able to kill it.

That would be preferable to 'I can shoot that character because I blocked my unit's LOS to his 'bodyguard' with this rhino...'

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 is from the article. They don't say "The closest enemy model with LOS". It just says the closest enemy model.

It's an easy house rule to get around if people prefer just like the base to base rule everyone(almost) uses in AOS. Rule that characters in coherency cant be targeted unless the attacker is within 12'' or what ever works for your friends groups play style. Personnly we use a few house rules for 40k/AoS for all the more funzeez < that's the point after all it's your game.

 Galas wrote:

This is from the article. They don't say "The closest enemy model with LOS". It just says the closest enemy model.

The article is a summary. I would be pretty confident that the actual rule will only count units in LOS, as it worked previously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
It's an easy house rule to get around if people prefer just like the base to base rule everyone(almost) uses in AOS. Rule that characters in coherency cant be targeted unless the attacker is within 12'' or what ever works for your friends groups play style. Personnly we use a few house rules for 40k/AoS for all the more funzeez < that's the point after all it's your game.

That's fine if you're just playing at home with friends. Less of a viable option if you play pick-up games or organised play.

Yeah this is totally the only instance where the 'I go you go' turn sequence breaks the realism...

That is hilarious. Though the dialogue could be changed to "Dang were too late!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forge the narrative!!

Yeah I mean there are of corse super soldiers in this setting but being 100% aware of every enemy in every direction that might point their gun at your commander and step in the way of the bullet while being in the middle of a war zone is still a godly ability.

I don't think it's that likely that enemy models a unit can't see would prevent that unit from firing on units they can see. GW does do some crazy stuff sometimes, but I don't see that one making it through play
testing.

@Insaniak - I guess we've both done that. Rhino on one side, building on the other, with just enough of a gap to shoot my Tactical Lascannon at the IC, who's now the only thing I can see. Yup, it's a little silly, I'll give you that, but it's also hard to do with whole units in front of that IC. Way easier when it's that lone Guardsman standing in front of Big Boss Smurf example that's come up a lot in this thread. Mind you, that actually improves what is otherwise an equally silly result IMO in the second case. Personally, I'm in favour, generally speaking, of maintaining the overall integrity of the rules preventing characters being sniped, even at the cost of occasional precision placement silliness. One or two hypothetical examples that seem goofy doesn't make the rule poor, IMO anyway.

Back to general thoughts...

Something to keep in mind overall with this character discussion - there's no reason, with templates gone, to avoid base-to-base deployment for infantry in order to block line of site.

Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:

This is from the article. They don't say "The closest enemy model with LOS". It just says the closest enemy model.

The article is a summary. I would be pretty confident that the actual rule will only count units in LOS, as it worked previously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
It's an easy house rule to get around if people prefer just like the base to base rule everyone(almost) uses in AOS. Rule that characters in coherency cant be targeted unless the attacker is within 12'' or what ever works for your friends groups play style. Personnly we use a few house rules for 40k/AoS for all the more funzeez < that's the point after all it's your game.

That's fine if you're just playing at home with friends. Less of a viable option if you play pick-up games or organised play.

Yeah it's likely to be LOS as long as they don't mess up by condensing the rules down in those 12 pages to much
As for not liking the rules.
Well really there's a few obvious answers:
You can put up shut up.
House rule when with friends then ask to play that way in pick up or just don't as it's not the end of the world.
Ask GW on Facebook a few times over the next year to change it to a rule you've tried that works better.
They stated it's a living rule set and have been actively looking and asking for feedback for a while(see previous FAQ)

People complained about the lack of meat in the chaos preview I said take it to fb/gw - plenty of people did just that and we got more in the guard one and apparently they are going to put in a chaos tidbit soon to make up for it.

I really think we just need to give it a chance and new gw one too.

Not that it is not fun to discuss the differences

 Fenris-77 wrote:

Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.

It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.

There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40K generally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.

 insaniak wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:

Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.

It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.

There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40K generally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.

They normally keep it consistent in the Wounds-Size relation, just like the Lord of Change, at least in AoS, receive a new warscroll with much more wounds when he receive the new giant model. Obviously, this can be tricky with things like Characters that normally have more wounds that units of the same size. To be honest, I think the only guy that will be weird with this, is Roboute Guilliman, because he has no reason to be so big, really.

But I think too that some kind of keyword, USR, etc... to say what characters are targeteable in a one by one basis, will be better than the 10-wounds mark. That way they are more free to make models and rules. But lets see how it plays. Maybe the next year they'll change it if it doesn't work well enough.

 insaniak wrote:

It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.

There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40K generally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.

I don't disagree with you in principle, but we both know that there's sometimes a gap between the principle and the reality, which is why I brought up the instance of arguments over LOS at tourneys. If we presuppose friendly games between reasonable people then lots of stuff isn't an issue. For competitive play I'm ok with a little black and whiteness if it will help trim down the number off arguments. So there's that, and I was just generally pointing out that while model size is 'real' on the tabletop it's equally abstract as a representation of some real (if imaginary) battle field. Honestly, I think arguments form realism aren't going anywhere given the nature of the game and it's extreme level of abstraction. For example, we can certainly compare the size of two models for LOS purposes, but at the same time the ranges for every single gun in the game are ridiculous compared to the scale of the models. So what's 'real' at that point? Are the ranges artificially foreshortened to make the game playable on a 4 x6 table? Pretty obviously IMO. However, the actual size of the models relative to targetting wouldn't seem so odd if the ranges were scaled to the figures (because we'd be playing games in a gymnasium).

I know I've jumped way past what you were implying, I just wanted to troublesome the idea of 'realism' actually is depending on what level we start looking at. Anyway, I'm not arguing, just expanding on an idea.

 insaniak wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:

Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.

It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.

There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40K generally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.

You can't use model size as a distinction in a game that doesn't assign sizes to models and especially in a game that uses true line of sight, because then you just get modeling for advantage. No one would ever use the fancy new celestine model when the other one is about a third the height and the old epic magnus model or old lord of change would be like 800$ on ebay and that's not even counting the people who convert a great unclean one out of some nurglings or w/e.

The wound thing works more or less the same as going based on size, at least where characters in 40k are concerned while eliminating exploits before they happen.

And for the record, outmanuevring a squad to headshot it's leader is a time honored tactic, the fact that it looks funny on a 40k board is down to igougo not the idea of it.

ERJAK wrote:

And for the record, outmanuevring a squad to headshot it's leader is a time honored tactic, the fact that it looks funny on a 40k board is down to igougo not the idea of it.

Just play the "Sniper Elite" videogame to know that!. I'm pretty sure that way we'll know how many testicles Roubote Guilliman has

Guys, just sit your lC smack in the middle of the unit you want to "babysit it... there's nothing that says you cant!

ERJAK wrote:

You can't use model size as a distinction in a game that doesn't assign sizes to models and especially in a game that uses true line of sight, because then you just get modeling for advantage.

Sure you can. You can use base size as a size definition, ala Warmahordes. Or you can do what GW have been doing for 30 years with TLOS and just assume that people won't get too carried away with crazy modelling.


Granted having defined sizes would work better. If only GW were re-writing 40K from the ground up, that could have been included...

 insaniak wrote:
It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.

There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40K generally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.

*shrug* Plenty of real-world historical precedent for "snipe the officers".

I'm fine with them deciding model-by-model which units are targetable and which aren't based on whether it makes sense for that model. Something that won't be hiding behind or amidst it's lackeys vs. something embedded in a unit. As long as it's balanced with other advantages it sounds fine. I like this change to characters - and can't wait to see the unit profiles!

 Galas wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:

Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.

It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.

There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40K generally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.

They normally keep it consistent in the Wounds-Size relation, just like the Lord of Change, at least in AoS, receive a new warscroll with much more wounds when he receive the new giant model. Obviously, this can be tricky with things like Characters that normally have more wounds that units of the same size. To be honest, I think the only guy that will be weird with this, is Roboute Guilliman, because he has no reason to be so big, really.

But I think too that some kind of keyword, USR, etc... to say what characters are targeteable in a one by one basis, will be better than the 10-wounds mark. That way they are more free to make models and rules. But lets see how it plays. Maybe the next year they'll change it if it doesn't work well enough.

Actually let's think about this, what characters would be likely to have 10+ wounds and be very small and what models would have <=9 and be very large?

You'd have Girlyman being very large for his wounds, daemon princes being in that weird size bracket where irrc he feels like he'd be weird in either, the old keeper of secrets, the metal great unclean one, and...MAYBE the tervigon? I think it's big enough to be shootable but I could see arguements either way.

I haven't seen the yncarne in person but that could be an issue and MAYBE bellisarius Cawl if he has 10+ wounds.

Astra Militarum only really has tanks for big leaders, Nids only have a handful of monstrous characters and most of them are large enough to not break immersion too bad, genestealers already basically have this rule, the only space marine characters I can see creating problems in this way are Girlyman and Santa Claws, sisters only have 5 hqs, Karamazof for Inq might be an issue but...meh, harlequins are fine, the avatar of khaine might be weird if you use specific versions of him but nothing else in eldar, dark eldar:nope, Admech only Cawl, Skiitari have no hqs, ynari the yncarne, Knights are knights, Magnus and the greater daemons have already been addressed, orks don't really have giant hqs and the one's they do have are ENORMOUS, Necrons...Command barge could be an issue, triarch shouldn't be it's pretty darn big, Tau are fine.

So out of all the factions you have 9 hqs in the entire game that could create issues of immersion and 3 of those is just because they still have old models that haven't caught up to the scale creep.

 insaniak wrote:
I never suggested that as an alternative, so I'm not sure how it's relevant.

It's only relevant in the sense of what you said a few pages back:

"Can we please stop holding up the current rules as if they're the only possible alternative to what GW have gone with for 8th edition?"

As long as people keep trying to counter your or my arguments with "But 7th Ed is worse so this is perfect!", comments such as Jonny's will remain "relevant".

7th Ed is a car. A car we used to love but it has been modded too much and driven into the ground. It's in need of a complete refurbishment and even our mechanic was like "Damn, that needs some fixin'!". So we took 7th Ed to our mechanic to get it fixed. A few days later he brought us a cubed car and a brand new motorbike. The motorbike is fine - it might even work wonderfully - but it's not our car. Our car is gone, crushed and swept away, without anything we wanted fixed, just replaced with something we didn't ask for.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I never suggested that as an alternative, so I'm not sure how it's relevant.

It's only relevant in the sense of what you said a few pages back:

"Can we please stop holding up the current rules as if they're the only possible alternative to what GW have gone with for 8th edition?"

As long as people keep trying to counter your or my arguments with "But 7th Ed is worse so this is perfect!", comments such as Jonny's will remain "relevant".

7th Ed is a car. A car we used to love but it has been modded too much and driven into the ground. It's in need of a complete refurbishment and even our mechanic was like "Damn, that needs some fixin'!". So we took 7th Ed to our mechanic to get it fixed. A few days later he brought us a cubed car and a brand new motorbike. The motorbike is fine - it might even work wonderfully - but it's not our car. Our car is gone, crushed and swept away, without anything we wanted fixed, just replaced with something we didn't ask for.

You can't generalice it as some universal truth. Many of this things comes down to personal preference above all. Others really, can be better, like the 2d6 charge, where I prefer the one sugested by a poster, maybe you remember, of charging 2d6 but if the distance is less than your movement distance is a secured charge. But I'm liking many of the other rules changes, and to me it will look that it will feel 40k still.
But even then, it comes down to personal preference, again. If we stoped coming to this thread with the mentality that our way, or our solutions are always better and the best ones, and the only way possible for the game to fuction, maybe more constructive things can come of all this hundreds of pages of discussion.
And I'm saying this in general, even aplying it to me, not specific to you H.B.M.C

What do you think "over a dozen wounds" for Magnus means? 13? 14? 15?

If it's 13 then they've short changed him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He's getting way less wounds than an Imperial Knight, that's for sure.

I find it a bit jarring to see GW mocking their previous edition with jokes about bullet catching characters and such. Yes, they're right that the closest dies first rule combined with ICs was awful. Most people saw that about 30 seconds after reading it... But NOW everything is going to be wonderful? Didn't we hear that last time around? In EXACTLY the same breathless tone? A little more humility and nuance, acknowledgement that there are trade offs in every design decision, and explaining the reason for the choices made would be nice. The smarmy faction focus things really stick in my craw - "Gee, these guys are going to be awesome again!" repeated over and over isn't that interesting. It wasn't usually the core rules that made them lousy last time, it was codex and data sheet add ons. And having theoretically hard nosed tournament playtesters write them is a bit odd. It hardly inspires confidence in the rigor of playtesting.

Still, I keep telling myself - free rules, faster play makes up for a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it can't be worse. : )

 Quarterdime wrote:
What do you think "over a dozen wounds" for Magnus means? 13? 14? 15?

If it's 13 then they've short changed him.

Archaon, the thing more close to Magnus the Red in AoS, has 20 wounds. Ok, Archaon The Everchosen is the most powerfull model (Or intented to be) in all the game.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-archaon-everchosen-en.pdf

Nagash, maybe more close to Magnus the Red as a "Giant caster", has 16 wounds.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-deathlords-nagash-en.pdf

And to me, 40k appears to have even more wounds because the shooting lethality is much bigger. So I'll say that Magnus will have between 16-24 wounds.

 kestral wrote:
Didn't we hear that last time around? In EXACTLY the same breathless tone?

No, because they haven't communicated with their player-base in many years.