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.

Median Trace wrote:
Did they say Chapter Tactics are gone? Is it just going to be different stratagems?

They where a little unclear if chapter tactics were exact gone or wether those were stratagems.

They said White scars get hit and run, but that didn't exactly say if you would have to spend a CP to do that hit and run.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Spoiler:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 gainsay wrote:
Anybody else really love the models but wtf with the fluff? I was ok with the primaris marine idea but when Phil confirmed that they can just "upgrade" existing marines to primaris I was really sad. Why not just make a new space marine kit and write something else for the story arc. It just seems really forced so it didnt seem like GW is going to phase out all your marines. Oh but wait they did anyways and really did a job on 20+ years of lore...

"Let me shove some squishy bits into you to make you better FOR THE EMPEROR!"

I'm sure it sounds better in the fluff that that though.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
Death Company Primaris...

*drools*

Legion of the Damned Primaris

Oh man that one would require some creative fluff writing. I just picture the normal marines staging a scenario where they are desperate to goad the legion of the damned into intervening while every bush contains an apothecary holding a comically large syringe ready to pounce on them and give them their medicine.

Wibbly wobbly warp shenanigans.

Yea I figured that much, I think you might not find the situation I created as funny as I. I'd actually prefer the funny one, since it's hilarious and actually more pallet-able to be honest. the coincidence that the warp touches LotD with the exact benefit exactly when all the other marines are is just as ridiculous and again, not as entertaining

I don't know. I like saying "wibbly wobbly warp".

Hmmm... "Wibbly wobbly warp wackiness". There, now it's alliterative.

I mean you must like teeny, tiny, small shrimp then. I'd rather just say, the warp

 Mr Morden wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Median Trace wrote:
Did they say Chapter Tactics are gone? Is it just going to be different stratagems?

They confirmed quite some time ago (on Facebook mainly) that Chapter Tactics are still in, as are Legion Tactics.

Today we learned that they may tie more into Stratagems as well.

Hopefully we will have Craftworld tactics, Order Tactics, Forge Tactics, Kabal tactics, Klan Taktics etc

Agreed. More variation in the ways you can run armies is better.

I don't have many Blood Angels. Next week I was going to order enough to do a Demi Company. Not any more!

Looking at the BA upgrade sprue the only bits not usable on the spacecasts will be the bodys (assuming the hands stay the same size and you're ok with MK7 heads on MK10 armor). I sort of want to stick the Death Mask, chalice and backpack decoration on that commander guy because he isn't pimped enough for my tastes.

Or they'll release new upgrade sprues (Death Company?) and make nipple armor for the spacecasts which I want really badly.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Dumbing down is an idea that stems from the idea that complicated rules mean more meaningful tactical play. I'm not sure I agree, I think the opposite is often true, because the more complex the rules the more winning relies on who has a better understanding of the rules than who plays better.

I agree, not to be the guy that brings chess up again but it IS an example of a very simple game with staggering depth in strategy.

And a very weird internal narrative logic:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Youn wrote:

Median Trace wrote:
Did they say Chapter Tactics are gone? Is it just going to be different stratagems?

They where a little unclear if chapter tactics were exact gone or wether those were stratagems.

They said White scars get hit and run, but that didn't exactly say if you would have to spend a CP to do that hit and run.

Could be both. Chapter Tactics may be a selection of unique strategems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:


I mean you must like teeny, tiny, small shrimp then. I'd rather just say, the warp

That's not alliteration. That is a list of synonyms though.

 Jambles wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
So, it is officially confirmed that armor facings are gone and there won't be anything to replace them. Not that I'm surprised seeing what unholy brainless abomination of an edition 8th is.
At this point it only seems fitting for GW to dumb bown and ruin their franchise even further.

Sorry dude - Bolt Action has armour facing, it's pretty good I hear...

So it's ok for something to gut a system for no good purpose because there is another game with the sme system somewhere out there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
So, it is officially confirmed that armor facings are gone and there won't be anything to replace them. Not that I'm surprised seeing what unholy brainless abomination of an edition 8th is.
At this point it only seems fitting for GW to dumb bown and ruin their franchise even further.

Bye Felicia.

Funny....ruining their franchise, yet it's doing better than it has in years and the hype is up for 8th. Glad you're not the one making calls.

Something is hyped = something is good. Nice backwards logic you got there. Enjoying those no man's skies and ME: Andromedas?

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
So, it is officially confirmed that armor facings are gone and there won't be anything to replace them. Not that I'm surprised seeing what unholy brainless abomination of an edition 8th is.
At this point it only seems fitting for GW to dumb bown and ruin their franchise even further.

Sorry dude - Bolt Action has armour facing, it's pretty good I hear...

So it's ok for something to gut a system for no good purpose because there is another game with the sme system somewhere out there?

That wasn't what they were saying. They were saying that if that's the key thing you want in a game, there's a game for you. It's called Bolt Action.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Dumbing down is an idea that stems from the idea that complicated rules mean more meaningful tactical play. I'm not sure I agree, I think the opposite is often true, because the more complex the rules the more winning relies on who has a better understanding of the rules than who plays better.

I agree, not to be the guy that brings chess up again but it IS an example of a very simple game with staggering depth in strategy.

I wonder if 100 years ago people where writing letters to Chess journals and ranting about how broken and OP the queen piece is and how it needs a nerf in the next edition of Chess.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
So, it is officially confirmed that armor facings are gone and there won't be anything to replace them. Not that I'm surprised seeing what unholy brainless abomination of an edition 8th is.
At this point it only seems fitting for GW to dumb bown and ruin their franchise even further.

Sorry dude - Bolt Action has armour facing, it's pretty good I hear...

So it's ok for something to gut a system for no good purpose because there is another game with the sme system somewhere out there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
So, it is officially confirmed that armor facings are gone and there won't be anything to replace them. Not that I'm surprised seeing what unholy brainless abomination of an edition 8th is.
At this point it only seems fitting for GW to dumb bown and ruin their franchise even further.

Bye Felicia.

Funny....ruining their franchise, yet it's doing better than it has in years and the hype is up for 8th. Glad you're not the one making calls.

Something is hyped = something is good. Nice backwards logic you got there. Enjoying those no man's skies and ME: Andromedas?

Making assumptions that it was for no good purpose.

faceings was clunky and enduping causing a lot of bs arguments about figuring out side or front armor on oblong shaped models and in the end all it was was a waste of time, extra charts and an extra unit format that didnt need to be the way it was.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Dumbing down is an idea that stems from the idea that complicated rules mean more meaningful tactical play. I'm not sure I agree, I think the opposite is often true, because the more complex the rules the more winning relies on who has a better understanding of the rules than who plays better.

I agree, not to be the guy that brings chess up again but it IS an example of a very simple game with staggering depth in strategy.

I wonder if 100 years ago people where writing letters to Chess journals and ranting about how broken and OP the queen piece is and how it needs a nerf in the next edition of Chess.

There are actual complaints that white is OP because it has the first move...

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Dumbing down is an idea that stems from the idea that complicated rules mean more meaningful tactical play. I'm not sure I agree, I think the opposite is often true, because the more complex the rules the more winning relies on who has a better understanding of the rules than who plays better.

I agree, not to be the guy that brings chess up again but it IS an example of a very simple game with staggering depth in strategy.

The problem with chess is that it only has one FOC. I want to use all six of my rooks but can only do so in Chess: Apocalypse.

 MLaw wrote:

You do know that most of the stuff that has armor values now would've had a toughness value in 2nd edition instead right?

Wasn't it vice versa? Bikes, Wraithguard and even Cyborks had armour values.

Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

 Oaka wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Dumbing down is an idea that stems from the idea that complicated rules mean more meaningful tactical play. I'm not sure I agree, I think the opposite is often true, because the more complex the rules the more winning relies on who has a better understanding of the rules than who plays better.

I agree, not to be the guy that brings chess up again but it IS an example of a very simple game with staggering depth in strategy.

The problem with chess is that it only has one FOC. I want to use all six of my rooks but can only do so in Chess: Apocalypse.

Better than the FOC in Checkers. It's a list full of a bunch of Boyz who only get to become a Boss if you reach the other side of the board.

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Less tactical for the attacker, yeah.
However it should hopefully speed the game up a bit and stop the tedium of checking which model is a fraction of an inch closer.

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Actually there are tactical choices there. If your unit is going to be charged after being shot do you take the wounds off the front where your special wound might be sitting, or off the back? Off the front would increase the charge range needed, but cost you a much needed weapon for the squad. Pulling off the back saves the weapon but leaves you potentially inside of charge range.

 Desubot wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
So, it is officially confirmed that armor facings are gone and there won't be anything to replace them. Not that I'm surprised seeing what unholy brainless abomination of an edition 8th is.
At this point it only seems fitting for GW to dumb bown and ruin their franchise even further.

Sorry dude - Bolt Action has armour facing, it's pretty good I hear...

So it's ok for something to gut a system for no good purpose because there is another game with the sme system somewhere out there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
So, it is officially confirmed that armor facings are gone and there won't be anything to replace them. Not that I'm surprised seeing what unholy brainless abomination of an edition 8th is.
At this point it only seems fitting for GW to dumb bown and ruin their franchise even further.

Bye Felicia.

Funny....ruining their franchise, yet it's doing better than it has in years and the hype is up for 8th. Glad you're not the one making calls.

Something is hyped = something is good. Nice backwards logic you got there. Enjoying those no man's skies and ME: Andromedas?

Making assumptions that it was for no good purpose.

faceings was clunky and enduping causing a lot of bs arguments about figuring out side or front armor on oblong shaped models and in the end all it was was a waste of time, extra charts and an extra unit format that didnt need to be the way it was.

opponents are causing bs arguments, that's not the system's fault.
Extra charts, really? Is memorising that armor goes from 10 to 14 is difficult for somebody? Is the game supposed to be by infants with no mental capacity?
Excludigng the point of how dumb having no armor values is, they could have still done facings using toughness with like a penalty/buff if you are shooting from the side or rear. But nope, let's just throw the system out of the window, because less tactics is more fun!

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Agreed, I like directionnal causalties, even if it needed a few tweaks.

All in all, it seems like 8th edition will be about as tactical as current edition. Lot of dumbing down (IMO), but a couple of new real interesting mechanics that are tactical (stratagem especially)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Actually there are tactical choices there. If your unit is going to be charged after being shot do you take the wounds off the front where your special wound might be sitting, or off the back? Off the front would increase the charge range needed, but cost you a much needed weapon for the squad. Pulling off the back saves the weapon but leaves you potentially inside of charge range.

7th was horrifically lopsided to attacks advantage. asides from some niche cases im glad power went a little more to the defender side with this and vehicles (hopefully) not getting instagibbed.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Agreed, I like directionnal causalties, even if it needed a few tweaks.

"A few tweaks" being locking people into movement trays and pulling models off the side closest to the attacker....

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Not really, it simply disbands a rule that did nothing but add additional hassles to the shooting phase, on top of giving the finger to assault armies. Taking casualties from anywhere inside the unit represents the idea that other members of the unit will move in and fill the 'hole' left by the recently dead/incapacitated warrior. This way all shooting casualties work the same. You just pick your casualties out and move on. No more eyeballing to see which model was closest to the firer, or trying to pull models out of the middle of the squad if they were hit by an ordnance weapon, etc. That wasn't exactly 'tactical' either. Just an added level of complexity for no real benefit.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Dumbing down is an idea that stems from the idea that complicated rules mean more meaningful tactical play. I'm not sure I agree, I think the opposite is often true, because the more complex the rules the more winning relies on who has a better understanding of the rules than who plays better.

I agree, not to be the guy that brings chess up again but it IS an example of a very simple game with staggering depth in strategy.

I wonder if 100 years ago people where writing letters to Chess journals and ranting about how broken and OP the queen piece is and how it needs a nerf in the next edition of Chess.

No, but you should have heard all of those checkers players complaining about how overpowered kings are...

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

opponents are causing bs arguments, that's not the system's fault.
Extra charts, really? Is memorising that armor goes from 10 to 14 is difficult for somebody? Is the game supposed to be by infants with no mental capacity?
Excludigng the point of how dumb having no armor values is, they could have still done facings using toughness with like a penalty if you are shooting from the side or rear. But nope, let's just throw the system out of the window, because less tactics is more fun!

You really think thats what im saying?

it is the systems fault for being loosy goosy with the concept allowing the gak situations to happen. same deal with all the abuse cases
Im not saying memorizing charts is hard. its not. but it IS having 2 different systems in a game and trying to balance both properly is a lot of extra work for basically no reward.

they decided the bloat was not worth trying to sift through so they rebuilt EVERYTHING from the ground up gak had to go and im glad they went that route.

 NivlacSupreme wrote:

Or they'll release new upgrade sprues (Death Company?) and make nipple armor for the spacecasts which I want really badly.

IIRC all the upgrade sprues so far have parts that will be incompatible with the mk-x armour(mostly the chest pieces). New versions would not surprise me at all. Hopefully GW will do more than the usual first founding chapters with the Primaris versions.

Oaka wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Dumbing down is an idea that stems from the idea that complicated rules mean more meaningful tactical play. I'm not sure I agree, I think the opposite is often true, because the more complex the rules the more winning relies on who has a better understanding of the rules than who plays better.

I agree, not to be the guy that brings chess up again but it IS an example of a very simple game with staggering depth in strategy.

The problem with chess is that it only has one FOC. I want to use all six of my rooks but can only do so in Chess: Apocalypse.

And did you ever try to get a Narrative game? Freaking NO ONE played narrative!

 Vryce wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Not really, it simply disbands a rule that did nothing but add additional hassles to the shooting phase, on top of giving the finger to assault armies. Taking casualties from anywhere inside the unit represents the idea that other members of the unit will move in and fill the 'hole' left by the recently dead/incapacitated warrior. This way all shooting casualties work the same. You just pick your casualties out and move on. No more eyeballing to see which model was closest to the firer, or trying to pull models out of the middle of the squad if they were hit by an ordnance weapon, etc. That wasn't exactly 'tactical' either. Just an added level of complexity for no real benefit.

Wait... since when more choice to the player equals less tactical??

Spoletta wrote:

 Vryce wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Not really, it simply disbands a rule that did nothing but add additional hassles to the shooting phase, on top of giving the finger to assault armies. Taking casualties from anywhere inside the unit represents the idea that other members of the unit will move in and fill the 'hole' left by the recently dead/incapacitated warrior. This way all shooting casualties work the same. You just pick your casualties out and move on. No more eyeballing to see which model was closest to the firer, or trying to pull models out of the middle of the squad if they were hit by an ordnance weapon, etc. That wasn't exactly 'tactical' either. Just an added level of complexity for no real benefit.

Wait... since when more choice to the player equals less tactical??

You have more choices now as the defender. Before you had none, it was all on the attacker's side making you a passive participant.

Spoletta wrote:

 Vryce wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Not really, it simply disbands a rule that did nothing but add additional hassles to the shooting phase, on top of giving the finger to assault armies. Taking casualties from anywhere inside the unit represents the idea that other members of the unit will move in and fill the 'hole' left by the recently dead/incapacitated warrior. This way all shooting casualties work the same. You just pick your casualties out and move on. No more eyeballing to see which model was closest to the firer, or trying to pull models out of the middle of the squad if they were hit by an ordnance weapon, etc. That wasn't exactly 'tactical' either. Just an added level of complexity for no real benefit.

Wait... since when more choice to the player equals less tactical??

What choice did the defender have? They removed the closest models to the shooting unit, or the models closest to the blast template if it was an ordnance weapon. There was no choice involved, aside from the maybe 1 out of 100 games where you had two models exactly the same distance away from the firing model.

This way, you can pull models from the front if you are expecting a charge that turn, or pull models from the center if you have a squad large enough to cover two objectives or however you need to do it based on the needs of the squad that turn. No longer can your opponent just throw enough dice at you to kill a couple of models in the front that were just allowing you to grab an objective. Now they're going to have to really pour the fire into you in order to cause you to loose enough models possibly to do that. If anything, it can actually add some tactics into the game, especially for the defender, instead of just passively plucking the front models out of the squad for every failed save.

Edit* Ninja'd by Clockwork.

 godardc wrote:
Thank you, Matt !
So, casualities aren't directionnal anymore ? Casualities are choosen by the owner ? It seems less tactical too, doesn't it ?

Actually, that is a huge advantage for the owning player. Remember overflow wounds just kills a model quicker it doesn't overflow to the next model.

Example:
Five man strike squad charge a pack of chaos terminators. They each swing twice and hit once each. A total of 4 wounds get through with a force weapons for 1, 1, 2, 2, wounds. Now, it's the chaos players turn to allocate out those wounds. The chaos player chooses to allocate out those wounds as 1,2,1,2. Then rolls the saves. If he fails all saves his 2 wound terminators take 1 wound then 2 wounds and dies, then the second one takes 1 wound and 2 wounds and dies.

The chaos player only loses two terminators instead of three on those wound because he gets to choose how those wounds are allocated.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You have more choices now as the defender. Before you had none, it was all on the attacker's side making you a passive participant.

Of course, it will also drive down the tactical importance of stuff like facing and positioning. It will also provide less significance to a well executed flank, meaning clever movement by the attacker is less rewarded.

On the other hand, I play IG, so I'm totally down for 5th edition style casualties again! How I long to once again have 10 wound meltaguns walking across the table.