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.

Pretty sure WD sounded much the same.

WD. Sure. But pretty sure there is a qualitative difference between the level of engagement regarding the new edition - having outsiders tell us their opinions like Frank and Reece, sharing rules at Adepticon and over Facebook - and what they've done in the past.

That's fair to say I think.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And a commitment to regular updates is encouraging.

 kestral wrote:
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. : )

Huh. I don't remember a live Q&A and daily posts on their community page last time. I must have missed that.

Dribbling it out is good marketing, but presenting it over time doesn't make the quantity or quality much different than what you got when you picked up the WD announcing a new edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although they have some reasonably witty people doing social media this time!

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Actually, as far back as I can remember at least, you haven't suggested one single alternative. You have just been critical, and on the defensive when that behavior is pointed out. I have no problem with differing opinions, but if your going to derail the thread for the 10th time the least you can do is suggest an alternative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Janthkin wrote:

 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".

Holy crap! I forgot about you!

 Red Corsair wrote:

Actually, as far back as I can remember at least, you haven't suggested one single alternative. You have just been snarky and critical, and on the defensive when that behavior is pointed out. I have no problem with differing opinions, but if your going to derail the thread for the 10th time the least you can do is suggest an alternative.

I have no idea whose posts you've been looking at... I've offered several alternatives to rules I haven't liked over the course of the discussion.

And discussing the rules that have been teased so far is not 'derailing the thread'... It's what the thread is for. This little sidetrack, by contrast, is off-topic. Please stick to discussing the game. If you have an issue with the way people are carrying on that discussion, there are more appropriate places to air that grievance.

 kestral wrote:
But NOW everything is going to be wonderful? Didn't we hear that last time around? In EXACTLY the same breathless tone?

Yep, and daring to criticise the awesomeness of 8th Ed now gets you insulted (or strawmanned) on every single page of this thread. As I said a few pages back, even insaniak - the calmest person in the whole thread - is getting treated like, well, like me!

 kestral wrote:
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.

To be fair, GW's own looks at their armies always amounted to "Everything is equally valid and useful! Buy all our playsets and toys!". It was like that in 3rd Ed FFS, so I don't see why it wouldn't be the same now. Still, the articles are pretty useless as far as 'focus' articles go. Hell, they would be more useful if they just picked a troubled unit from each army (Havocs, Rough Riders, the God-damned Pyrovore!) and focused on that, looking at its history and how the new rules give it a new lease on life.

But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".

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

 kestral wrote:
And it can't be worse. : )

I think GW's up to that challenge.

 kestral wrote:
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. : )

The gist of this comment is also what I can't help thinking...the irony of all the snarky scoffing at the last edition's rules when in fact it's the same batch of chuckle-heads overseeing this rule set! Weren't these guys the main problem in the first place, whether it was in marketing or game design? We all hope this next go around will be an improvement and so far much is promising, but their track record says otherwise.

Overall my guess is the new rule set will be an improvement in many ways over the previous edition but some things will be found wanting right off the bat and after people get in some games new problems will arise. That's why I hope most of all they stay true to their statement of revising the game where necessary after a reasonable time.

 insaniak wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
But they can still do all the stuff they did in 7th... shoot, fight and protect the IC.

So?

They can do all the stuff they did in 7th edition... unless the enemy walks around them. At which point they become irrelevant.

But that is the same now, closest target takes the wound first

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".

Coming from Reece and Frankie I don't think this is merely marketing speak, it does really sound like they were heavily involved in balancing the new edition, and wanted every unit to be a viable choice (though of course this would also be an optimum situation from a model sales perspective).

This from FLG:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Q: What happens to command squads now?
A: Hey Robert,
Command Squads work as they always have - a great unit to accompany your commander to battle.

Well... no. They can stand near one another. The IC isn't really leading the squad though.

But he is, it is just perspective

 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.

The logical reason is plain as day.

1 - GW makes statements about how they are making close combat more effective in this edition. They talk about how deadly and visceral it is.
2 - GW then allows for multiple overwatches in a single turn, gives all units split fire, and dramatically increases the appeal of lower S higher ROF weapons.
3 - GW now has no way to ensure combat ever happens at all unless you create an obtuse rule that prevents players from shooting at you as you approach.

This all seems very heavy-handed to me. They are delivering close combat - as the metaphor goes - 'at gunpoint'.

The simpler way to describe this change is that they are removing a possible choice from players. You may no longer target these units so that they can make it into close combat. Target priority be damned. Don't think tactically, just let the wookie Ultramarine win.

But now we influence the new edition with feedback! If you dont like it but can think of something that will, then bring it up a bit after launch. Playtest the free fricken rules already. Then, experiment with house rules. When you think you have something, THEN be VOCAL about your ground breaking achievement. Moaning and groaning about what is going to be overpowered and what rules won't work or have their intended effect when you haven't even read the actual black and white, the actual wording of the rules, is not doing anyone any good. You already have the models. The rules will be free and will change according to what we come up with!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Yep, and daring to criticise the awesomeness of 8th Ed now gets you insulted (or strawmanned) on every single page of this thread. As I said a few pages back, even insaniak - the calmest person in the whole thread - is getting treated like, well, like me!

You can pretend that your "side" doesn't make insults or strawmen. That doesn't make it true.

 Rippy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Q: What happens to command squads now?
A: Hey Robert,
Command Squads work as they always have - a great unit to accompany your commander to battle.

Well... no. They can stand near one another. The IC isn't really leading the squad though.

But he is, it is just perspective

What I mean by this is, a squad currently is just a bunch of dudes standing near each other, if he is still standing near those dudes providing benefits than there really is no difference. Yes I know that when they are a squad they can't walk different directions, but a general should be free to break off and do what he wants/needs to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Yep, and daring to criticise the awesomeness of 8th Ed now gets you insulted (or strawmanned) on every single page of this thread. As I said a few pages back, even insaniak - the calmest person in the whole thread - is getting treated like, well, like me!

You can pretend that your "side" doesn't make insults or strawmen. That doesn't make it true.

"Your side", come on dude, people have different opinions
If "I like this" has "I don't like this" back, it's not an argument. The response should be "fair enough", because who cares if you love the changes, and Insaniak doesn't like them. Your opinions won't affect either of you when it comes out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insaniak, H.B.M.C and other have said they don't like the changes, stop trying to change their mind. They can say they don't like something, that should be the end of the conversation. They are currently defending themselves, and providing their opinions when being attacked on their opinions.

That's why I put it in quotations.

I'm not trying to change their minds either. I just don't enjoy exercises in absurdism while being told that we are somehow persecuting them.

None of which has anything to do with the actual topic of discussion here.

Seriously, foks - the topic is the 8th edition rules reveals, not the posting habits of other Dakka members.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Q: What happens to command squads now?
A: Hey Robert,
Command Squads work as they always have - a great unit to accompany your commander to battle.

Well... no. They can stand near one another. The IC isn't really leading the squad though.

Rules wise he isn't but there is nothing keeping you from Forging the Narrative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Problem is the car was full of rust and holes, the engine stalled all the time, it couldn't reach soeeds of over thirty amd everyime you got in it someone hopped in to tell you how you're driving it wrong or how it cold be a better car.

The car was a lemon and frankly the dealer should be ashamed for selling it.

To fix 40k the rulls needed to be culled. Hard. If that means we now ride around on a Vespa but it works great, gets up to speed right and the weird issues are gone, I'm all for it.

The car was dead before the mechanic touched it. I'm just glad we didn't get it back with a new paint scheme and missing the doors.

 En Excelsis wrote:

The logical reason is plain as day.

1 - GW makes statements about how they are making close combat more effective in this edition. They talk about how deadly and visceral it is.
2 - GW then allows for multiple overwatches in a single turn, gives all units split fire, and dramatically increases the appeal of lower S higher ROF weapons.
3 - GW now has no way to ensure combat ever happens at all unless you create an obtuse rule that prevents players from shooting at you as you approach.

This all seems very heavy-handed to me. They are delivering close combat - as the metaphor goes - 'at gunpoint'.

The simpler way to describe this change is that they are removing a possible choice from players. You may no longer target these units so that they can make it into close combat. Target priority be damned. Don't think tactically, just let the wookie Ultramarine win.

Two things. One, you may be 100% correct. It's possible that the game will work exactly as you describe above. We don't know all the rules, so there's no arguing about how correct you are, or aren't, as the case may be. Second, I think it's unlikely that you're correct. Completely IMO of course, as we've both seen exactly the same minimal reveals.

Why do I think that? Because of the play testing. Hypotheses about the full nature of the rules, including the balance of combat and shooting you describe is exactly that right now - hypothetical. What is a fact is that hard-core 40k tourney players are absolute masters at corn-holing a rules set and building WAC lists that will chew up and spit out fluff lists like nobody's business. I'm not even talking about the exact group of guys who did the play testing, there's a much larger body of guys who can do the same job. Those guys have had every new codex rated, ranked, and WAC'd out within weeks of release, and that has been true for years and many editions of the game. So if a bunch of those kind of guys (my kind of guys to be honest) playtested the rules and are going to go on record as saying "this works well, you'll like it" I'm not really tempted to disbelieve them based on supposition. Not because I like them, or they're my buddies, or because I'm a GW fan boy, but because if anyone can break this new rules set it's the tournament maniacs, and they said they liked it and it works. Call it Occam's razor if you like.

Based on what I've seen so far, my opinion is that we're going to get a game that is better balanced across the full range of units, and between close combat and shooting. I sincerely hope that's the case too, because more balance will make for better competitive play and better casual play, and that's what I would really like to see.

Personally, I love the idea of alternating combat activations rather than initiative. I love the fact that you can't put multiple IC's into single units. I love even the faintest whiff of better close-ranged balance. I'm not even upset about the removal of armour and facings. The limited reveals we've seen look, to me anyway, like a very fresh take on the game, and I think fresh is something 40K can really use after the last couple of editions.

As I mentioned before, none of the above is in the way of persuasive writing. Just my opinion.

There's more butthurt in this thread than is needed.
What's tomorrows article?

 Janthkin wrote:

 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".

Yea, by snipers.

Guess we're going to have an actual use for that unit class now? because most armies have SOME snipers. they were just never really relevant because everything "sniping" did was an alternate damage mechanic, rather than a tactical edge.

Rubenite wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".

Coming from Reece and Frankie I don't think this is merely marketing speak, it does really sound like they were heavily involved in balancing the new edition, and wanted every unit to be a viable choice (though of course this would also be an optimum situation from a model sales perspective).

Reece also stated (in one of the Frontline podcasts) that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all. So, I think many are over-emphasizing their actual involvement in helping with the play testing and any subsequent rules development that was accrued from those outside play-testers.

Wow, the AM faction focus was SO much better than the csm one. I guess the "they can't mention rules because GW/editors/legal action" argument is dead.

Leman Russ has 12 wounds and degrades movement after 6
Ratlings can snipe characters
Commissars reduce wounds from failed morale tests (seems a little weird but I guess it represents him killing off a few to keep the rest in line)
FRF! SRF! makes lasguns rapid fire 2

Thats a lot of crunch for a preview article and really highlights how bad the CSM one was

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Rules wise he isn't but there is nothing keeping you from Forging the Narrative.

Thank you. Saves me from having to make that joke again.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Problem is the car was full of rust and holes, the engine stalled all the time, it couldn't reach soeeds of over thirty amd everyime you got in it someone hopped in to tell you how you're driving it wrong or how it cold be a better car.

One could say that it lost all its hull points.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The car was a lemon and frankly the dealer should be ashamed for selling it.

I think that's the fundamental disagreement that so many of us are having here.

I don't think that (switching metaphors here) taking 40K 3rd Ed-through-7th Ed out the back of the woodshed and putting a bullet in its brain is a solution to fixing the problems that built up over time (and especially in 7th Ed). A wholesale replacement of 40K doesn't sit well with me because I think that at it's core 3rd Ed 40K (which is what 7th Ed was based on) worked fine.

I always prefer refinement over replacement, and that's how my mindset works. I was part of the playtest group for the second edition of Dark Heresy. What was eventually the Beta was quite different to what we go originally, and the final product was quite different to the Beta as well. I was unhappy with the original playtest version because it seemed to try 'fixing' problems with Dark Heresy 1.0 by simply throwing out the rules and trying something different. To me at least, and this is just my opinion (and that of my group), was that the problems weren't being fixed, they were being ignored, and a massive patch was being placed over the top.

That doesn't mean you never try something new - damage degradation sounds like a great idea to me - but I'd much rather fix the problem than throw it away and start again.

Moreover, I'd really appreciate it if some people here could drop the attitude that if it's in the new 40K rules then it must be perfect. The degradation thing is a perfect example. A few of us have offered ideas that would allow this to be a simple over-arching rule, whereas GW have gone for the, in our opinion, utterly unnecessary (and more prone to error) 'bespoke' method of giving every unit its own unique table. Rather than debating the merits of either side, quite a few people here just scream at us for being 'haters' consider the new rules perfect just because they're not 7th Ed.

As insaniak said, 7th Ed isn't necessarily the only alternative to these new rules. Saying "Well it sucked in 7th Ed!" is not a counter argument to an 8th Ed rule being bad.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think that (switching metaphors here) taking 40K 3rd Ed-through-7th Ed out the back of the woodshed and putting a bullet in its brain is a solution to fixing the problems that built up over time (and especially in 7th Ed). A wholesale replacement of 40K doesn't sit well with me because I think that at it's core 3rd Ed 40K (which is what 7th Ed was based on) worked fine.

7th ed was rooted in 3rd ed? I'll give you it shared slightly more DNA with 3e than 2e, but just barely. The allies & formation systems had gotten so complicated that I gave up on the game - it was essentially impossible to really know the rules of the game anymore, much less easily tell if your opponent's army (or hell, if your OWN) was valid or not. The proliferation of model-specific special rules was a LONG way from the Black Book simplicity of early 3e. I'll give you that late 3e had you carrying around quite a collection of books, though. (Trial Assault Rules, anyone?)

One thing that is historically true: GW will proliferate more rules and more complexity, and it won't take them long to start (have to get people buying new codexes). So if we can begin with 12 pages of rules and get the base mechanics resolved before that happens, that's great.

What I really want is a TERRAIN rules preview. I've been playing so many non-GW games of late, and ALL of the them make better use of terrain (and encourage more tactical thinking) than 40k has in the last 2 editions. Of course, when 6e Tau launched, terrain stopped mattering anyway, given that everything could shoot over/ignore it....

One note as a (retired) Guard & Tyranid player: the new shooting rules look great to me. I've always loved the rank-and-file, and for just about my entire playing history, that meant that while my models HAD an armor stat, it was essentially irrelevant - bolters went right through it. The idea that people will stock up on countless small arms and rely on 6's to kill characters/monsters/vehicles with 10+ wounds seems a bit reactionary (much like the old "just shoot paladin-stars to death with bolters" advice that didn't work in 5e). But again - tell me what amount of terrain the game is intended to use, and everything may change.

 Janthkin wrote:
The idea that people will stock up on countless small arms and rely on 6's to kill characters/monsters/vehicles with 10+ wounds seems a bit reactionary

I don't think people were suggesting that so much as simply thinking it was a little ridiculous that it is possible.

Outside of that, and with the caveat that I'm holding off judgement until at least one of my Dreadnoughts manage to still be on the table at the end of a game, I have to agree that what we've seen of the shooting rules looks pretty good. The AP system worked, but was a little pointless when so many models just never got to actually use their armour. And the return of the Damage stat on heavy weapons is cool.

Charax wrote:
Wow, the AM faction focus was SO much better than the csm one. I guess the "they can't mention rules because GW/editors/legal action" argument is dead.

Leman Russ has 12 wounds and degrades movement after 6
Ratlings can snipe characters
Commissars reduce wounds from failed morale tests (seems a little weird but I guess it represents him killing off a few to keep the rest in line)
FRF! SRF! makes lasguns rapid fire 2

Thats a lot of crunch for a preview article and really highlights how bad the CSM one was

ALL /Snipers/ can target Characters.

Commissars and Characters provide bubble effects, not just to the unit they join.

Mchaagen wrote:

Rubenite wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".

Coming from Reece and Frankie I don't think this is merely marketing speak, it does really sound like they were heavily involved in balancing the new edition, and wanted every unit to be a viable choice (though of course this would also be an optimum situation from a model sales perspective).

Reece also stated (in one of the Frontline podcasts) that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all. So, I think many are over-emphasizing their actual involvement in helping with the play testing and any subsequent rules development that was accrued from those outside play-testers.

This is a bit disengenuous, what he actually said was that their part in 8th was very small, yes, but the context of the comment was to underscore the mammoth size of the task at hand rather than simply gw not taking their feedback, or them not giving much feedback.

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.

Lol people should really learn about ALL the editions before making sweeping statmeents that "in all previous editions...".

In 2nd ed exarch were independent characters who could be given different wargear and exarch powers. Powers weren't limited to certain aspects like they are now(so you could have in theory tank hunting exarch howling banshee gear).

One common combination was for example swooping hawk wings(mobility) combined with firepike(or fusion gun). Mobile tank busting exarch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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

They have had input and testing from top tournament organizers and players before as well. Didn't prevent them from going "huh somebody would do that?" before either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun 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.

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.

Very unlikely you WON'T see multiple units in one unit. They are porting pretty much everything from AOS so why stop here. Especially as they need to figure out some way to give characters chance to join units. Some specific restriction it's only for 1 unit + character(s) takes more space which then gets duplicated over every transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 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.

No the answer was for character making UNIT tanky. Ie make unit tanky by putting them into a tank rather than having character with 2+ rerollable at the front tanking all the wounds like in 7th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Will vehicule still explode in 8th edition ?

Maybe not but troops inside will likely die. Dwarf transports when they get destroyed lose troop inside on a roll of 1.