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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It'll be about lasguns and Lan...


I'll get my coat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think this was mentioned earlier, though more and more reports for pre-order starting next week

http://natfka.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/are-8th-edition-pre-orders-coming-next.html?m=1


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if someone could please make a summary of the live Q&A, that would be great
If not, I will do one up in 17 hours on my lunch break lol

 Rippy wrote:

I think this was mentioned earlier, though more and more reports for pre-order starting next week

Also if someone could please make a summary of the live Q&A, that would be great
If not, I will do one up in 17 hours on my lunch break lol

My poor wallet.... Here's hoping they don't release the Primarine Dreadnought along with the rules or that at least it looks like crap...

tneva82 wrote:
I would expect transport rules get a mention.

And yeah no facings. GW decided to say screw to logic.

It's easy to fix in your own group, just say -1 toughness for side armour, -2 for rear, then make certain units immune like vehicles with the same av all sound. Actually now I think of it, this is something that should be in the game anyway, except the exceptions, that's just a thought due to legacy rules.

tneva82 wrote:
I would expect transport rules get a mention.

And yeah no facings. GW decided to say screw to logic.

Well I imagine they said

Vehicle Facings
We did not bother with it for Age of Sigmar and for MCs and GCs in 40k
We are streamlining the game - will this add to the game
Will it be complicated and lead to arguments with the shape of many vehicles compared to say tanks in most games which are pretty square?
Do other games use this system for all their big things - some do and some don't

Then they said - yeah the relative benefit is likely not worth it - there are plenty of tactical elements already, lets drop it.

and they did - we will see how it works in reality.

 Formosa wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
I would expect transport rules get a mention.

And yeah no facings. GW decided to say screw to logic.

It's easy to fix in your own group, just say -1 toughness for side armour, -2 for rear, then make certain units immune like vehicles with the same av all sound. Actually now I think of it, this is something that should be in the game anyway, except the exceptions, that's just a thought due to legacy rules.

Yeah this would work even better in the narrative gamestyle (check out OP for more info).

I would argue it would be more balanced if it was +1 to front armour, -1 to rear armour though

tneva82 wrote:
I would expect transport rules get a mention.

And yeah no facings. GW decided to say screw to logic.

Logic as in Space Marine carrying heavy bolter shoots at chimera - and is unable to put as much as a dent into the chimera. He moves half an inch to the right and shoots again - the shot now suddenly penetrates the armor plates of the chimera, hits a vital piece of equipment and the APC explodes in a fireball, killing everybody inside. You know, because it mattered where the marine was standing, and not where he was aiming.

Facings were totally logical. Especially on anything the tau or eldar call a vehicle.

You could either write six pages of rules and draw a diagram for every single vehicle ever, or you could just drop the whole thing, making the rules a lot simpler with little to no loss.

I think GW has made the right choice.

 Rippy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
I would expect transport rules get a mention.

And yeah no facings. GW decided to say screw to logic.

It's easy to fix in your own group, just say -1 toughness for side armour, -2 for rear, then make certain units immune like vehicles with the same av all sound. Actually now I think of it, this is something that should be in the game anyway, except the exceptions, that's just a thought due to legacy rules.

Yeah this would work even better in the narrative gamestyle (check out OP for more info).

I would argue it would be more balanced if it was +1 to front armour, -1 to rear armour though

thats nice and simple, yep i agree

Facings were an interesting mechanic to have, but it's not needed in a wargame.
Warmachine has a smaller scale, facings marked on the base of every model, a strenght vs armor mechanic and focuses on big models, yet it uses a single armor profile.

Ashkayel wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
So, something I have noticed in the couple statlines we've seen so far is <something>

Either Sept, chapter tactics, or hive fleet. I am wondering if this is a thematic army bonus ala the current chapter tactics system for every army.

Could grant the sexy thematic bonuses we all love so much to allow for more viability of different army lists.

Warbikers with the <Evil Sunz> keyword could more 13" instead of 12"! I'm pretty sure ork klanz will be a thing in 8th!

But only if they're painted red. It's the only situation where i not only want the specific paint job of a model to affect it's rules, but i demand it !

MaxT wrote:

Ashkayel wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
So, something I have noticed in the couple statlines we've seen so far is <something>

Either Sept, chapter tactics, or hive fleet. I am wondering if this is a thematic army bonus ala the current chapter tactics system for every army.

Could grant the sexy thematic bonuses we all love so much to allow for more viability of different army lists.

Warbikers with the <Evil Sunz> keyword could more 13" instead of 12"! I'm pretty sure ork klanz will be a thing in 8th!

But only if they're painted red. It's the only situation where i not only want the specific paint job of a model to affect it's rules, but i demand it !

You 40k lot are not prepared for the levels of painting argument that are about to follow, unless GW clarify

I love the chapter/force/clan etc specific rules, it makes the force feel more personal, and if done right, fits the type of army.

It's the only situation where i not only want the specific paint job of a model to affect it's rules

Would everybody hate if there was some sort of guidance saying that if you want to use a particular faction keyword then there must be something on the models to signify that it is part of that faction? Be that back banners, decals paint schema or whatever.

I think that would prevent people from 'faction hoping' to gain an advantage against different opponents, although people like that would probably just find a different way to game the system!

 Kroem wrote:

It's the only situation where i not only want the specific paint job of a model to affect it's rules

Would everybody hate if there was some sort of guidance saying that if you want to use a particular faction keyword then there must be something on the models to signify that it is part of that faction? Be that back banners, decals paint schema or whatever.

I think that would prevent people from 'faction hoping' to gain an advantage against different opponents, although people like that would probably just find a different way to game the system!

That something that might be worth a option tournament rule tbh - causual games less important IMO

They covered something extremely broadly similar in 8th Ed Warhammer.

Used to be that when it came to Wizards, those that could choose their deck/college/lore would do so after deployment.

This meant some armies with wide access could pick whichever was most advantageous. Against Chaos or Bretonnians? Metal was good. Orcs or Ogres? Shadow tended to punish low Initiative values.

8th Ed changed that to Lore/College/Deck being chosen when you wrote your army list.

 Kroem wrote:


I think that would prevent people from 'faction hoping' to gain an advantage against different opponents, although people like that would probably just find a different way to game the system!

This isn't a problem in my book. If you want to play your purple marines as Imperial Fists today and Raven Guard tomorrow, that's fine. Just be clear at the start of the game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

8th Ed changed that to Lore/College/Deck being chosen when you wrote your army list.

For a tournament? Absolute agreement. Your Space Marines are X Chapter when you make your list.

 kronk wrote:

 Kroem wrote:


I think that would prevent people from 'faction hoping' to gain an advantage against different opponents, although people like that would probably just find a different way to game the system!

This isn't a problem in my book. If you want to play your purple marines as Imperial Fists today and Raven Guard tomorrow, that's fine. Just be clear at the start of the game.

Completely agree. You can't force a guy playing with Dark Angels minis to stick to Dark Angels forever with said mins, when they can work as Salamanders or Blood Angels for today.

Tourneys, on the other hand...

Well, GW has thrown a few curveballs. What's the over/under that facings are a thing in this article?

 Formosa wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
I would expect transport rules get a mention.

And yeah no facings. GW decided to say screw to logic.

It's easy to fix in your own group, just say -1 toughness for side armour, -2 for rear, then make certain units immune like vehicles with the same av all sound. Actually now I think of it, this is something that should be in the game anyway, except the exceptions, that's just a thought due to legacy rules.

Personally I like how FoW handles this, you have 'front' armour which tends to be heavier, 'rear' which also covers the sides and is usually lighter, then 'top' which covers air attacks and is used in close assault (representing weak spots being found etc)

Draw a ling across the front of the model, are you when firing at the vehicle totally ahead of that line? if you front armour, if partly ahead or totally behind, rear armour. allow ordinance to use the top armour plus infantry in close assault.

-1 toughness to the side, -2 toughness to the top, done.

With vehicles likely to get their own data card, a simple diagram shows where you draw the line on a case by case basis, done.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

Zanderchief wrote:

The new marines fluff seems (from what we know) dreadful and they are doing the stupid Stormcast naming for each type of guy with a different weapon. "Oh these guys are the dominators, they carry whips". I guess this is the lame IP protection (honestly I am embarrassed to say some of the names (to non gamers i know) they come up with these days. But mostly its the way it cheapens regular marines. Reminds me of Saturday morning cartoons when they introduce a new cool toy to kids by making them "badass+1". It also seems weird that the typically techno-repressive Imperium is ok with it.

Like devastators, terminators, sternguard, vanguard, ...

Not really, all these units had numerous different weapons available to them. The Numarines unit we saw can only take bolter. Might be different for the other units though

In all fairness, the term intercessor is perfectly applicable in this case. It's a regular English word that rarely sees use in day to day communication. It's a predominantly religious term for a person or entity who intercedes on another's behalf... typically as a result of prayer. You know, like an angel. This fits with a basic Primaris Marine's intended function... to serve as the Emperor's Angels of Death and answer the 'prayers' of beleagured Imperial worlds. It also fits with the weirdly hyper-religious nature of the Imperium. Robby G doesn't like it, but seems to understand that if he wants cooperation, he needs to play ball. Intercessor is a perfect term. He can't exactly call them NuMarines or TallBoyz.

vehicle facings were no fun if you were facing Drop Pods, or webway Eldar that can just appear right behind to rear armor and poof vehicles away.

My Ork trukks are 10 all around, so not much of an issue, but the Battle Wagon was prime bait that i only ever fielded twice.

Bubble wrap you say? Clump even more boyz together to get caught in the explosion,die, fail morale, beat yourself up, or run away?

I like the new change.

leopard wrote:


Personally I like how FoW handles this, you have 'front' armour which tends to be heavier, 'rear' which also covers the sides and is usually lighter, then 'top' which covers air attacks and is used in close assault (representing weak spots being found etc)

Draw a ling across the front of the model, are you when firing at the vehicle totally ahead of that line? if you front armour, if partly ahead or totally behind, rear armour. allow ordinance to use the top armour plus infantry in close assault.

-1 toughness to the side, -2 toughness to the top, done.

With vehicles likely to get their own data card, a simple diagram shows where you draw the line on a case by case basis, done.

Simple on paper. Not so simple in terms of balance.

 Kroem wrote:

It's the only situation where i not only want the specific paint job of a model to affect it's rules

Would everybody hate if there was some sort of guidance saying that if you want to use a particular faction keyword then there must be something on the models to signify that it is part of that faction? Be that back banners, decals paint schema or whatever.

I think that would prevent people from 'faction hoping' to gain an advantage against different opponents, although people like that would probably just find a different way to game the system!

No, because I like to see people coming up with their own paint schemes. If your electric space tigers want to use Salamanders rules because it makes the most sense in their fluff, I don't care.

You can't force a guy playing with Dark Angels minis to stick to Dark Angels forever with said mins, when they can work as Salamanders or Blood Angels for today.

Yea I suppose so, I would probably treat it like playing someone with unpainted models i.e. I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but wouldn't refuse to play them or try to make them feel bad about it.

I like I idea of having to work within a more restrictive rule set to promote your strengths and mitigate your weaknesses though, rather than just changing the rules you play by to suit whatever you need for that particular battle.

 Kroem wrote:

It's the only situation where i not only want the specific paint job of a model to affect it's rules

Would everybody hate if there was some sort of guidance saying that if you want to use a particular faction keyword then there must be something on the models to signify that it is part of that faction? Be that back banners, decals paint schema or whatever.

I think that would prevent people from 'faction hoping' to gain an advantage against different opponents, although people like that would probably just find a different way to game the system!

No, faction hoping isn't a problem, but screwing up people with wants to use custom-made order/klan/craftworld/dynasty/hive fleet does.

My preference would be for factions(chapter, hive fleet, craftworld etc) to cost points, as if they come with any kind of benefit the idea that all those benefits have an equivalent value seems unlikely.

Barring that I would hope they have built in restrictions on list building

We see it now with codex space marines where some chapters are clearly stronger than others.

I've been out of the 40K loop for a while, but the Trygon rules says "At the end of any of your movement phases, set up etc.."
Didn't we have to do some kind of reserve roll before, or is this just part of it's Subterranean Assault rule.

Will other "Tactical Reserves" also not need to roll do you think?

Marleymoo wrote:
I've been out of the 40K loop for a while, but the Trygon rules says "At the end of any of your movement phases, set up etc.."
Didn't we have to do some kind of reserve roll before, or is this just part of it's Subterranean Assault rule.

Will other "Tactical Reserves" also not need to roll do you think?

I certainly hope so, because they have said that anything not in on turn 3 is destroyed.

Even if it were a 2+ roll, it'd suuuuuuuuuck to lose your deep striking unit just because you rolled 3 unlucky 1's.

If I had to guess, I would bank on small universal benefits for some, and others gaining slightly more powerful bonuses but only while within a certain range of an exceptionally thematic unit.

So lyanden faction gain bonuses for being within 6" of wraith constructs, but the construct themselves don't get these bonuses.

White scar units gain a bonus die when "advancing" choose the highest because their units are known for speed when closing with the enemy.

It would be a cool thing to see on the tabletop.

the_scotsman wrote:

Marleymoo wrote:
I've been out of the 40K loop for a while, but the Trygon rules says "At the end of any of your movement phases, set up etc.."
Didn't we have to do some kind of reserve roll before, or is this just part of it's Subterranean Assault rule.

Will other "Tactical Reserves" also not need to roll do you think?

I certainly hope so, because they have said that anything not in on turn 3 is destroyed.

Even if it were a 2+ roll, it'd suuuuuuuuuck to lose your deep striking unit just because you rolled 3 unlucky 1's.

I dont think rolling for reserves will be a thing this edition. It always struck me as odd that in a game based on tactics they would effectively force you to randomize said tactics with reserve rolls...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kroem wrote:

It's the only situation where i not only want the specific paint job of a model to affect it's rules

Would everybody hate if there was some sort of guidance saying that if you want to use a particular faction keyword then there must be something on the models to signify that it is part of that faction? Be that back banners, decals paint schema or whatever.

I think that would prevent people from 'faction hoping' to gain an advantage against different opponents, although people like that would probably just find a different way to game the system!

No, faction hoping isn't a problem, but screwing up people with wants to use custom-made order/klan/craftworld/dynasty/hive fleet does.

The Kharadon Overlords for AoS have rules that let you either field your army as one of their official ones or make your own, with slightly fewer advantages but being able to mix them as you see fit. That seems like a reasonable solution. It does slightly limit players who have a fixed set of traits for their homebrew subfaction vs. ones who change their rules to suit their list, but I think it's about as good as you can get.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If I had to guess, I would bank on small universal benefits for some, and others gaining slightly more powerful bonuses but only while within a certain range of an exceptionally thematic unit.

So lyanden faction gain bonuses for being within 6" of wraith constructs, but the construct themselves don't get these bonuses.

White scar units gain a bonus die when "advancing" choose the highest because their units are known for speed when closing with the enemy.

It would be a cool thing to see on the tabletop.

I would highly suggest people look into the Stormcast and Kharadon Overlord books and the way the different Stormhosts/Ports work to get an idea as to how this might work.