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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

changemod wrote:
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?

If all models can use grenades again then it won't be as bad. Sure, you may not be able to shoot for a turn but you'll damage their transport.
Maybe even destroy it if your lucky, deterring opponents from charging in the first place.

Of course 1 turn is generally all you need as the assault player. Next turn you have contents inside charging. Job done.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.

Actually I wouldn't (and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models). I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went. However, I don't think that will be the case. "Characters suffer a wound on the roll of a 1" for example.

 Hollow wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.

Actually I wouldn't (and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models). I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went. However, I don't think that will be the case. "Characters suffer a wound on the roll of a 1" for example.

True that. Its like complaining that deep strike mishap sucks because you wanted to deepstrike close to the enemy but had to take the mishap because you were unlucky, or dangerous terrain in its current form because you can still die from it. Its risk vs reward. And for all you know characters just take a wound. In AoS if you move through a sylvaneth wyldwood you roll a die for any who ran or charge across. On a 1 you remove your model but that does not happen to monsters or heroes so I believe that might be the case where it might remove some models but not all.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I fail to see why it's so scary. Your dudes will still fight in combat - likely wounding on 5+ or 6+. You will probably be able to fling a grenade or something too, or your seargent with powerfist will destroy it himself. In fact, buying a decent weapon on your seargant (a mace or sword or something) might actually be useful for once! The transport will lock you down for one turn at most against a squad at full strength.

And if you're playing with Power Levels instead of points, you won't think twice about giving that weapon to sarge. I really like that when playing with Power Levels, you can take upgrades that you would normally never even think of. You'll be able to tell which point system an AM player uses depending on the presence of Hunter Killer missles on all the tanks.

 Hollow wrote:
(and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models)

What the feth has that got to do with anything?

A bad rule is a bad rule. It's got nothing to with being a "grown ass man".

 Hollow wrote:
Actually I wouldn't . I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went.

I just... I mean. I can't even.

"I'd just accept it cuz they playtested it so it must be perfect!"

You're the kind of person infomercial makers must dream of.

Or you could look at his point about deepstrike mishaps and see the value of "maybe I shouldn't put my character in a tank when the enemy fielded a battery of lascannons..."

If you think the tank will survive, give big boy a speed boost. If you are affraid it will pop, but are cool with a 5/6 chance to survive, give big boy a speed boost. If you aren't cool with either, then don't do it.

It's not like they can target him if he's behind the tank anyway.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
(and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models)

What the feth has that got to do with anything?

A bad rule is a bad rule. It's got nothing to with being a "grown ass man".

 Hollow wrote:
Actually I wouldn't . I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went.

I just... I mean. I can't even.

"I'd just accept it cuz they playtested it so it must be perfect!"

You're the kind of person infomercial makers must dream of.

Good show of character. Really classy.

If you dont want to risk Abbadon and co the choice is to not put him in a transport. With vehicles generally being tougher I can see why they wouldn't want them to be a near risk free set of ablative wounds. If you are in a badly damaged Land Raider you might want to get out.

On Transport stun locking I'd have thought the answer was some effective assault units to pick them up before they get there. Although its probably more efficient to pack some heavier guns and just kill them.

On the topic of Transports Stun Locking, My thought is that It's probally going to make stuff like Melta-Bomb must buy's for squads. If you can drop the transport's wounds fairly low in your shooting phase, you would then be able to just kill the transport with your return attacks in the enemy fight phase. Then your free to act normally.

You don't need to fully kill the transports, you just need to drop them low enough that they are not a threat in the melee phase.

We are all friends here guys, no need to get nasty.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
(and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models)

What the feth has that got to do with anything?

A bad rule is a bad rule. It's got nothing to with being a "grown ass man".

 Hollow wrote:
Actually I wouldn't . I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went.

I just... I mean. I can't even.

"I'd just accept it cuz they playtested it so it must be perfect!"

You're the kind of person infomercial makers must dream of.

Oh look, another person that thinks that just because they saw an incredibly obvious potential issue in an article written by a PR guy with no context as to how it functions amongst the larger ruleset who thinks that it's 100% immutable fact that it works exactly how it sounds, and that by seeing this, again incredibly obvious thing, thinks they solved some kind of secret code that only THEY were smart enough to see.

You saw it, I saw it, the rules people probably saw it, the playtesters definitely saw it. Does that mean it's guaranteed to have been fixed? No. Would it be stupid to have abaddon die because a rhino hit a bush? Yes. Well I mean not abaddon specifically but, like a good character, yes it would suck. But you're not special because you can read.

 Hollow wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.

Actually I wouldn't (and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models). I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went. However, I don't think that will be the case. "Characters suffer a wound on the roll of a 1" for example.

1 - Disliking a rule has nothing to do with one's personal responsibility or lack of it. Just the fact that you went there shows you have no idea of how to refute his point.

2 - Just because something survived playtesting doesn't mean it should have. I mean look at so many, many things in the previous editions.

3 - As it stands (Models inside a wrecked Transport will now die on the roll of a 1.) it IS a badly designed rule.

The summary of the known rumors does not give a complete picture. The sum is often greater than the parts. I hope this also holds for the new release. I've some things I like, some other things I don't.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The summary of the known rumors does not give a complete picture. The sum is often greater than the parts. I hope this also holds for the new release. I've some things I like, some other things I don't.

There is alot more I like about the new rules than dont so far, but you are 100% correct, but I may dislike the rules all together.

Can always give the character a jump pack and have him/her/it fly along side the trasport as long as the enemy is sniper free they can't shoot him unless he's closest xD

also even if it is straight dead on a 1 i'm not sure we know the order of allocation e.g. 5 marines and ragnar blackmane in a rhino... do you roll for each one individually or do you simply roll 6 dice and assign any 1's to who you like... seems to be the later by how they have confirmed wound allocation works now from shooting.

It does suck for more elite units... but i expect the price of a land raider will be the same cross faction... a unit of termintors gets more out of a static costed landraider than say a unit of inq henchmen would so...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.

I figure it will be up to the owning player. As they want to speed up the game, if you have a squad of 4 Terminators and Abaddon, instead of rolling five dice seperate dice, you just roll five dice at once. When you get, for instance, two 1's, you can allocate the 1's yourself, so would 2 Terminators die.

I think the universal rule is "Owning player chooses casualties", it is like that when taking damage in squads without transports, and will prolly also be inside transports.

Want to waste GWs time asking stupid questions with obvious answers? This made me kek

Neronoxx wrote:
Good show of character. Really classy.

Tyel wrote:
If you dont want to risk Abbadon and co the choice is to not put him in a transport.

ERJAK wrote:
Oh look, another person that thinks that just because they saw an incredibly obvious potential issue in an article written by a PR guy with no context as to how it functions amongst the larger ruleset who thinks that it's 100% immutable fact that it works exactly how it sounds, and that by seeing this, again incredibly obvious thing, thinks they solved some kind of secret code that only THEY were smart enough to see.

Stormcrow managed to get what I was saying instantly. Shame the rest of you didn't. My point certainly wasn't complex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Stormcrow managed to get what I was saying instantly. Shame the rest of you didn't. My point certainly wasn't complex.

I don't think 2/3 of the above posters missed your point. They're questioning why you're treating people like idiots for not agreeing with you...

Wow people must have been terrified of Deep Striking Characters.....

 Zande4 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Stormcrow managed to get what I was saying instantly. Shame the rest of you didn't. My point certainly wasn't complex.

I don't think 2/3 of the above posters missed your point. They're questioning why you're treating people like idiots for not agreeing with you...

Uh, I don't think you understand how this works.

HBMC will tell you if a rule is stupid or not and you will accept his ruling

It's not even a rule yet, it's a line in an article that gives you an indication of the rule.

 Rippy wrote:
Want to waste GWs time asking stupid questions with obvious answers? This made me kek

Dark Angels are traitors confirmed.

The discussion about the new rule set is a bit a waste of time, since GW have given us only part of the rules. They opened the door a bit and let us have a glance into a shiny new room they say. I'm cautious since the OP and underwhelming units/models, gaps and loop holes of the rule set are glooming everywhere.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The discussion about the new rule set is a bit a waste of time, since GW have given us only part of the rules. They opened the door a bit and let us have a glance into a shiny new room they say. I'm cautious since the OP and underwhelming units/models, gaps and loop holes of the rule set are glooming everywhere.

I think the way in which people are so eager to declare things OP or underwhelming when they haven't got anywhere near to the majority of the picture kind of tells you that they are the kind of people that wouldn't be happy with a game handcrafted by God himself.

Vorian wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The discussion about the new rule set is a bit a waste of time, since GW have given us only part of the rules. They opened the door a bit and let us have a glance into a shiny new room they say. I'm cautious since the OP and underwhelming units/models, gaps and loop holes of the rule set are glooming everywhere.

I think the way in which people are so eager to declare things OP or underwhelming when they haven't got anywhere near to the majority of the picture kind of tells you that they are the kind of people that wouldn't be happy with a game handcrafted by God himself.

Want to avoid bringing religion into this but arguments could be made...

Man, vehicles might as well be useless now. First they made it so land raiders could be killed by lasguns, now this?!

I'm gonna burn my models!

MSU is king
MSU is trash

Shooting is king, CC is trash
CC is king, shooting is trash

Vehicles are king
Vehicles are trash

*Delete as appropriate

I don't know, vehicles might just charge into line driving over people, mad max style; sounds fun.

Any more news from shops whether preorders for 8th will start this saturday?

MongooseMatt? BrookM? Anyone else of the reliable folks with new info?

The Preorder list should be sent to LFGS today