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.

tneva82 wrote:


IF you have rules that don't match the fluff AND work you have game designer that has failed in his job. Period. End of story. It's not impossible to have both of them.

There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for rules to not follow fluff except pure incompetence by the game designer. They are not mutually exclusive. Only foolish game designer would think they are.

We got bad rules because you know what? GW game designers aren't quality game designers. Also they don't play like tournament players play. They have their own different meta that means that even units tournament players know suck are actually useful. GW designers could have said screw the fluff, rules only and they would still have got just as big mess if not bigger.

No, its not impossible to have both of them, but historically we have not had both of them. We have had some good rules that were fluffy, and some good rules that werent fluffy. We've had bad rules that weren't fluffy, and some bad rules that were very fluffy. not to mention that the fluff for this game is written inconsistently by upwards of 20 seperate authors and a half dozen codex writers.

I certainly hope that the design team will progress, but I'm not about to drag them out into the street and flay their skin off with a piece of glass if they miss the mark occasionally. And if they do miss the mark, or need to implement a stop gap while they fix things, those choices SHOULD favor the rules being playable and fair.

Period. end of Story.

This Tyranid teaser has me salivating. Swarmlord is my favorite model - so excited to put him on the table!

Spoletta wrote:

The death of a tervigon will inflict mortal wounds on the termagants.

I really hope that's a guess

"Tau Fly cannot survive a huge assault by a dedicated close-combat unit" is very different from "Tau Fly is useless."

tneva82 wrote:


IF you have rules that don't match the fluff AND work you have game designer that has failed in his job. Period. End of story. It's not impossible to have both of them.

There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for rules to not follow fluff except pure incompetence by the game designer. They are not mutually exclusive. Only foolish game designer would think they are.

We got bad rules because you know what? GW game designers aren't quality game designers. Also they don't play like tournament players play. They have their own different meta that means that even units tournament players know suck are actually useful. GW designers could have said screw the fluff, rules only and they would still have got just as big mess if not bigger.

Ok then we'll have them write stories that are more muted. Does that make you happy?

I mean how can Roboute still be alive when I killed him last game? They should write him out now or tone down his fluff.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.

Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.

At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.

 insaniak wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.

Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.

At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.

How? You disembark, move and charge, all in your turn. How can they move out of assault range?

 Galas wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.

Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.

At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.

How? You disembark, move and charge, all in your turn. How can they move out of assault range?

I'm assuming he means that the enemy will move away from the transport in their turn, as you can't move the vehicle before disembarking now.
That said, you could just move the vehicle very close to them, so that even if they do move, they can still be charged.

 insaniak wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.

Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.

At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.

I don't understand. You disembark from the transport at the start of your movement phase before the transport moves, then you move the unit, possibly shoot with it and then charge with them. That's much better than what we have now. It just means that you'll have to time it right.

haha i just had a though in the new edition i guess a rhino can charge and fight another rhino again and again and again in combat...

http://assets.gocar.be/picserver1/userdata/1/21203/fIw4MFmF/151015_mercedes_toys_video_large.jpg

childhood mems on the tabletop

The one thing I am dying to know is how wounds are allocated to a unit when a gun does multiple shots and multiple damage. Enlighten me if we've had it explained, I must have missed it, but this is the scenario that's confusing me.

Say we shoot a unit with the battlecannon. The stats are: RNG 72"/ Heavy D6/S 8/AP 2/ DMG D3.

So if this was AoS, we would work out the shot as follows: shoots up to 6 attacks and each does D3 damage on the unit, so a maximum of 18 wounds inflicted on the unit.

Now we know in 40k that damage does not splash over from one model to the next. So if I was shooting a unit of 1 wound models the most I could do would be 6 wounds, rather than 18.

But what if I am shooting a unit with multiple wounds (say 4 each like the Tyranid Warriors), do I need to keep applying wounds to models until they die (like in AoS) or will those 6 shots each have to be allocated to a different model?

I presume it's only one model can be wounded at a time, but that would mean rolling for Damage 1 dice at a time, wouldn't it? Say those 6 shots all wounded a unit of Tyranid Warriors, I wound't be able to just roll 6D3 because that would allow damage to splash across models. Instead I would have to roll the dice one at a time so that if I rolled a 6 (3 wounds) followed by a 4 (2 wounds) it would only do 4 wounds in total and not splash. Or am I allowed to roll 6D3 at once and then group them into neat model killing blocks (so pair a 5,6 with a 1,2 to get an even 4 wounds)? I feel like there is still a piece missing from the picture here.

Can't wait to find out

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.

Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.

At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.

I don't understand. You disembark from the transport at the start of your movement phase before the transport moves, then you move the unit, possibly shoot with it and then charge with them. That's much better than what we have now. It just means that you'll have to time it right.

This, given disembarking will probably be about 6" from access points, if it's not radically changed from 7th/6th. Plus, if access points are at the back of a vehicle, I could see someone rushing up a transport and doing some sort of dramatic fishtail so the move ends with the transport's rear facing the enemy, decreasing the distance towards the intended target a couple extra inches. Not terribly sure that'd be a very orthodox move, but so far it seems like it could be possible.

tneva82 wrote:
Play chess if you just want abstract game without any background consideration.

Well, the initial deployment is very background-driven.

 Latro_ wrote:
haha i just had a though in the new edition i guess a rhino can charge and fight another rhino again and again and again in combat...

http://assets.gocar.be/picserver1/userdata/1/21203/fIw4MFmF/151015_mercedes_toys_video_large.jpg

childhood mems on the tabletop

Maybe they spontaneously become Transformers?

 KommissarKiln wrote:
This, given disembarking will probably be about 6" from access points, if it's not radically changed from 7th/6th. Plus, if access points are at the back of a vehicle, I could see someone rushing up a transport and doing some sort of dramatic fishtail so the move ends with the transport's rear facing the enemy, decreasing the distance towards the intended target a couple extra inches. Not terribly sure that'd be a very orthodox move, but so far it seems like it could be possible.

That would be pretty clever (and cinematic) but I'm wondering if they'll do what the Overlords did and just have a 3" bubble around the whole vehicle for disembarking units. It would be really neat and tidy, which is what they seem to be aiming for these days.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


I'm assuming he means that the enemy will move away from the transport in their turn, as you can't move the vehicle before disembarking now.
That said, you could just move the vehicle very close to them, so that even if they do move, they can still be charged.

Yes, that's what he means.

Moving the transport close enough to ensure your charge is going to happen (accounting also for random charge range) just means the enemy unit will assault your transport before you can disembark.

And being inside the transport when it dies gives your guys a one in six chance of dying. Which, as. I said, takes us back to 4th edition where the inside of a transport is the last place your assault troops will want to be.

tneva82 wrote:

 davou wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


As if. If you want to take out fluff might just as well play with chess. You know there's no reason you cannot make things work without breaking fluff?

Now albeit you can easily fluff justify it with their super speed but claiming fluff needs not to be followed is bad logic. You can make it balanced AND fluffy so why not? Play chess if you just want abstract game without any background consideration.

Fluff is important, but it should play second fiddle to a game that works. If the fluff needs to take a knock on he head to make sure that the game is well running, then it absolutely should. If they can make the rules in a way that is fluffy and runs well, then even better, but rules design should favor efficient well running rules. We've had ages of fluff winning out over rules, and it game very close to destroying the whole thing.

If the rules aren't as important as the fluff, then why not just treated the game like a 5 year old playing with GI-joes; or do you realize how terrible that chess argument is?

IF you have rules that don't match the fluff AND work you have game designer that has failed in his job. Period. End of story. It's not impossible to have both of them.

There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for rules to not follow fluff except pure incompetence by the game designer. They are not mutually exclusive. Only foolish game designer would think they are.

We got bad rules because you know what? GW game designers aren't quality game designers. Also they don't play like tournament players play. They have their own different meta that means that even units tournament players know suck are actually useful. GW designers could have said screw the fluff, rules only and they would still have got just as big mess if not bigger.

So there's no reason that seeing a space marine should be rarer than getting struck by lightning 3 times while laying in a ditch? Or that 99% of all games should be IG vs Orks or IG vs Cultists? Or that half your army just randomly decides to turn on itself everytime you fight chaos? Should we also ban people playing against each other if they both play the same chapter loyal marines? Or that GK aren't allowed to fight xenos armies and deathwatch don't fight chaos? Etc, etc,etc.

The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.

I wonder if you can shoot out of an open topped vehicle, and then have it charge something in the next phase?

 Bottle wrote:
The one thing I am dying to know is how wounds are allocated to a unit when a gun does multiple shots and multiple damage. Enlighten me if we've had it explained, I must have missed it, but this is the scenario that's confusing me.

Say we shoot a unit with the battlecannon. The stats are: RNG 72"/ Heavy D6/S 8/AP 2/ DMG D3.

So if this was AoS, we would work out the shot as follows: shoots up to 6 attacks and each does D3 damage on the unit, so a maximum of 18 wounds inflicted on the unit.

Now we know in 40k that damage does not splash over from one model to the next. So if I was shooting a unit of 1 wound models the most I could do would be 6 wounds, rather than 18.

But what if I am shooting a unit with multiple wounds (say 4 each like the Tyranid Warriors), do I need to keep applying wounds to models until they die (like in AoS) or will those 6 shots each have to be allocated to a different model?

I presume it's only one model can be wounded at a time, but that would mean rolling for Damage 1 dice at a time, wouldn't it? Say those 6 shots all wounded a unit of Tyranid Warriors, I wound't be able to just roll 6D3 because that would allow damage to splash across models. Instead I would have to roll the dice one at a time so that if I rolled a 6 (3 wounds) followed by a 4 (2 wounds) it would only do 4 wounds in total and not splash. Or am I allowed to roll 6D3 at once and then group them into neat model killing blocks (so pair a 5,6 with a 1,2 to get an even 4 wounds)? I feel like there is still a piece missing from the picture here.

Can't wait to find out

This is actually a very good question. Maybe can you try asking them it in Facebook? I think they haven't said how that situation is resolved. Because I want too to know what happens if you shoot 6 shoots to a unit of multiwounds models. You can shoot twice to three models? One time to six models? Or maybe you can choose how to distribute the hits? I assume, has the defender choose what unit dies, then it just doesn't matter.

ERJAK wrote:


The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.

Exalted and stolen

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
haha i just had a though in the new edition i guess a rhino can charge and fight another rhino again and again and again in combat...

http://assets.gocar.be/picserver1/userdata/1/21203/fIw4MFmF/151015_mercedes_toys_video_large.jpg

childhood mems on the tabletop

Maybe they spontaneously become Transformers?

Yeah or vehicles in 40k ram each other - its not exactly new.

I just want to see someone model a vehicle with big beefy arms on the front quarter panels. Kind of like the spoof land raiders with wings you sometimes saw back in 5th.

Thought: I hope non-walker vehicles still don't lock into combat, because otherwise you could charge 5 rhinos into 5 shooty units and gum them up to either stay locked or fall back and surrender shooting.

 Bottle wrote:
The one thing I am dying to know is how wounds are allocated to a unit when a gun does multiple shots and multiple damage. Enlighten me if we've had it explained, I must have missed it, but this is the scenario that's confusing me.

Say we shoot a unit with the battlecannon. The stats are: RNG 72"/ Heavy D6/S 8/AP 2/ DMG D3.

So if this was AoS, we would work out the shot as follows: shoots up to 6 attacks and each does D3 damage on the unit, so a maximum of 18 wounds inflicted on the unit.

Now we know in 40k that damage does not splash over from one model to the next. So if I was shooting a unit of 1 wound models the most I could do would be 6 wounds, rather than 18.

But what if I am shooting a unit with multiple wounds (say 4 each like the Tyranid Warriors), do I need to keep applying wounds to models until they die (like in AoS) or will those 6 shots each have to be allocated to a different model?

I presume it's only one model can be wounded at a time, but that would mean rolling for Damage 1 dice at a time, wouldn't it? Say those 6 shots all wounded a unit of Tyranid Warriors, I wound't be able to just roll 6D3 because that would allow damage to splash across models. Instead I would have to roll the dice one at a time so that if I rolled a 6 (3 wounds) followed by a 4 (2 wounds) it would only do 4 wounds in total and not splash. Or am I allowed to roll 6D3 at once and then group them into neat model killing blocks (so pair a 5,6 with a 1,2 to get an even 4 wounds)? I feel like there is still a piece missing from the picture here.

Can't wait to find out

Each damage roll does a max of whatever the max wounds is of the unit.

So firghting termies:

Lascannon does 4 damage, 2 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 1 damage, 1 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 2 damage, 2 damage added to pool

There are now 5 wounds to distribute starting with a model of your choice and applying wounds until the model is dead.

Best guess anyway.

Will Tyranids ever rise above their T6 ceiling?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Will Tyranids ever rise above their T6 ceiling?

Do bear in mind that they don't seem to be really using toughnesses above 8, despite the raised cap.

I was genuinely expecting the imperial knight to have more than 10 toughness.

I fully expect we'll see T10+ on Titans, Stompas, Hierophants, etc

Daedalus81 wrote:


Each damage roll does a max of whatever the max wounds is of the unit.

So firghting termies:

Lascannon does 4 damage, 2 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 1 damage, 1 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 2 damage, 2 damage added to pool

There are now 5 wounds to distribute starting with a model of your choice and applying wounds until the model is dead.

Best guess anyway.

It sounds more like it will be:

Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)
Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.

You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.

 xttz wrote:
I fully expect we'll see T10+ on Titans, Stompas, Hierophants, etc

Probably one of my biggest questions is "will I be able to bring my T'aunar to casual/semicasual games now?"

I tested it out once in 7th against an imperial knight list and it didn't take any wounds. As in, I'm not saying it passed all it's saves, I'm saying it never took any wounds it needed to roll a save for in the first place.

Loopstah wrote:


It sounds more like it will be:

Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)
Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.

You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.

The only reason I doubt that is because you create your wound pool in AoS. Your method requires the player to interrupt each and every attack.

And it will vary based on what you roll and when.