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.

Voldrak wrote:
Those new rules seem to indicate that if you move 12 inches forward, stop and then pivot slightly to get a different angle on your target for LOS purposes you would end up moving the back of your hull more than 12 inches and as such would be illegal.

This seems like it would slow down the current process of measure a spot 6 or 12 inches away from your tank, picking it up and putting it down however you want as long as it's not outside of that original mark. Now if you don't keep the exact same positioning, parts of your hull are bound to have moved more than 12 inches.


Am I understanding this correctly?

Measure from point that will move most by final position. Which seeing sideways toward enemy will be most efficient most of the time means you won't often be turning anyway at the end so no biggie.

I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

 KommissarKiln wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
This is the problem I was talking about. If this is how it goes if unit gets wounded by 4 lascannons that's 4 lascannons you need to roll one by one.

d6. 4 wounds. 4 DR rolls.
d6. 2 wounds. 2 DR rolls
d6. 6 wounds. 6 DR rolls
d6. 1 wound. 1 DR roll

See? That would be very slow rolling! With speed and simplicy being buzzwords I doubt that is how it goes.

That looks completely wrong. Somehow you're rolling for damage twice per lascannon, no wonder it seems so slow to you. Try:
4 lascannons have hit and wounded. Roll saves (if any). Only then, for unsaved wounds, roll d6 damage per unsaved wound, one at a time. You don't cause d6 wounds per lascannon, then roll for damage for each wound. You've essentially squared the damage done per lascannon in your example.

The 4 DR rolls are for disgustingly resilient which according to death guard faction is _after_ damage roll. Ie opposite of saves. That's the wtf causer. If it was roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, roll for disgustingly resilient, roll for damage no problem. Instead it's roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, roll for damage, roll for disgusting resilient. WTF?

Albeit maybe it's DR is before damage roll and faction focus was incorrect. One can hope.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

I don't think there will be unfortunately. Haven't seen anything about vehicles not being able to pivot when they stop

 Thargrim wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:


I wonder how marines will coexist in the next couple of releases. I hope we won't see a phase-out of the old scale models.

Me too, although I think the writing is on the wall though, sadly.

I'm hoping they think SM sell well enough to support both ranges. It would be painful to see so many years of 40k fluff and history vanish from a model perspective. The primus marines are cool but as others have said they are very sleek and not as gothic. No studs or rivets on them etc. And that kind of look is part of what has defined 40k for so long. Even if they don't get any more new kits from here on out, i'd hope they get officially supported rules for many more years.

+1. As it is if the old marine range DOES get discontinued that's the day I stop all purchaces. At least for marine armies. I have way too many marines to replace(I'm not millionaire!) and old and new marines look silly together so...

Of course does leave ebay but there sucks that you have to strip paint more often than not.

The Inceptors are a total Starcraft 2 Reaper ripoff: the masks, the flaps on the thrusters, the pistol loadout.



Funny thing is that I thought Reapers were assault marine/seraphim ripoffs back in the day.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

People wanted MC's and vehicles to work under same rules. Be careful what you wish for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

I don't think there will be unfortunately. Haven't seen anything about vehicles not being able to pivot when they stop

What would that really solve? "can't pivot after stopping"? Move 0.01" less forward, pivot, 0.01" forward. Whopedoo.

 MLaw wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
it really sucks that these numarines seems to have barely any options of weapons. they will be a real cookie cutter army

Those are literally the starter set options. Assuming that what we see is it.. well, I think that's really too early to determine. If there are options they can take in the book that aren't represented in the starter kit.. well.. I happen to know of a gajillion sites that sell that sort of thing..

Indeed, the previewed Primaris profiles are probably from the starter box army list that only covers the models and options in the box. If you look at the AoS starter set the Stormcast squads had no options either. But the full release kits have quite a few.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I'm no military specialist, but ain't a lot of modern tanks more armoured on the front cause they want to maintain some speed?

Yup.

It's either choice of uniformally weaker armour everywhere or have heavy armour where you expect most firepower to come from. If you try and make every armour as strong as the current front armour your vehicle is so frigging heavy that a) your speed goes down(assuming you can move at all!) b) to get even that you might need to up the engine c) you struggle at bad ground and could run into trouble with bridges(hey bridge that can't support tanks weight anymore! Have fun crossing it).

There's _reason_ why tanks have frontal armour as the thickest armour. It's not arbitory decision by games designers but comes from how _tanks are built_.

Unless you make armour that somehow weights same regardless of how thick it is(at which point why the armours are so thin?) the armour will be strongest at one side. That or it's lightly armoured everywhere and basically isn't even designed to survive more than light arm fire.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

You know that's pretty much how it works now right? Like with no free pivot vehicles just move so that no part of the vehicle goes further than x inches. I mean technically I guess you might still be supposed to turn or w/e but I haven't seen any bother in a long time

ERJAK wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

You know that's pretty much how it works now right? Like with no free pivot vehicles just move so that no part of the vehicle goes further than x inches. I mean technically I guess you might still be supposed to turn or w/e but I haven't seen any bother in a long time

Yes and no, since facings make it so that in most case, you have a severe disavantage if you do so.

Must say that the removal of facings is probably the thing that bothers me the most with this new edition. Such a foolish decision.

There's other decisions that I don't like (such as removing the templates and making the psychic phase a lot more shallow), but at least for these, I can see the reason for doing so (speeding up the play). When it comes to the removal of facings, I can see no good reasons (no, causing less argument is not a good reason imo)

Vovin wrote:
The Inceptors are a total Starcraft 2 Reaper ripoff: the masks, the flaps on the thrusters, the pistol loadout.



Funny thing is that I thought Reapers were assault marine/seraphim ripoffs back in the day.

Well, inspired

Wil Reese artwork from the mid-80s (he was involved in the Rogue Trader concept designs - predating Mk VI) already featured such elements aplenty see RT rulebook art

 streetsamurai wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

You know that's pretty much how it works now right? Like with no free pivot vehicles just move so that no part of the vehicle goes further than x inches. I mean technically I guess you might still be supposed to turn or w/e but I haven't seen any bother in a long time

Yes and no, since facings make it so that in most case, you have a severe disavantage if you do so.

Must say that the removal of facings is probably the thing that bothers me the most with this new edition. Such a foolish decision.

The arguments of thats the side no its the front no its the side alone is enough for me to welcome it.

I think it'll open up the game for vehicles and the game to be more tactical and dynamic also

 Latro_ wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

You know that's pretty much how it works now right? Like with no free pivot vehicles just move so that no part of the vehicle goes further than x inches. I mean technically I guess you might still be supposed to turn or w/e but I haven't seen any bother in a long time

Yes and no, since facings make it so that in most case, you have a severe disavantage if you do so.

Must say that the removal of facings is probably the thing that bothers me the most with this new edition. Such a foolish decision.

The arguments of thats the side no its the front no its the side alone is enough for me to welcome it.

In a game that use TLOS, such argument are already very common, and are in most case easily solved with a simple laser.

And how can it makes the game more tactical? That seems to be a pretty contradictory statement.

 streetsamurai wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

You know that's pretty much how it works now right? Like with no free pivot vehicles just move so that no part of the vehicle goes further than x inches. I mean technically I guess you might still be supposed to turn or w/e but I haven't seen any bother in a long time

Yes and no, since facings make it so that in most case, you have a severe disavantage if you do so.

Must say that the removal of facings is probably the thing that bothers me the most with this new edition. Such a foolish decision.

Meh, agree to disagree. The only thing I don't like so far is the character transport thing. The armor facings was a neat concept but only tanks that don't move ever care.

Rhinos are 11 11 10. Whoo how important that facing is
Chimeras are...does it matter? When was the last time you saw one?
Eldar tanks basically get to pick what facing you're shooting at anyway, so long as they argue better.
Necrons have weird shapes and 14 14 14 so they're a pain and the ones that aren't are to fast to get around reasonably.
Tau...do Tau have tanks? I've honestly never seen one.
IG? You're hitting front armor unless you're SM or Eldar cause dem beeches don't move.
Chaos, far as I can tell never got a vehicle other than the 12 12 10 omg it's in my face, oh wait it's immobilized maulerfiend.
SM vehicles are either irrelevant long range shooting platforms, irrelevant land raiders, or the afore mentioned rhinos which are only relevant because they cost zero points, and drop pods.

Tl: DR, facings wouldn't of been that big of a deal even if they did have any meaningful effect on the game.

Popped into my local GW today. GW Head Office army painting team has painted up hundreds of models to be sent in small batches to each store so that each store had painted examples of the miniatures on hand today.

My store had a HQ painted example of a Plague Marine and Primaris Marine. In addition, the store was sent sprued examples from the box. In this case the Nurgle Lord and the Primaris Captain and a single Plague Zombie all of which the GW manager was building/painting. It was all snap fit with some slight modularity so you can re-position certain arms and heads etc. I was mighty impressed with what he had to show and looking forward to seeing more of the box contents.

He must have also had the books, although they weren't available to look over. He said the fluff behind the new Assault Marines and those skids is they launch from Orbit (ie not from a transport/ground like a current Assault Marine - more like one man fighter craft) and used them like a giant shock absorber/landing skid.

"We need bigger drop pods!"

"No Interceptor Primaris, you are the drop pod."

ERJAK wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I really hope there will be something to prevent side moving vehicules. That would be atrocious

You know that's pretty much how it works now right? Like with no free pivot vehicles just move so that no part of the vehicle goes further than x inches. I mean technically I guess you might still be supposed to turn or w/e but I haven't seen any bother in a long time

Yes and no, since facings make it so that in most case, you have a severe disavantage if you do so.

Must say that the removal of facings is probably the thing that bothers me the most with this new edition. Such a foolish decision.

Meh, agree to disagree. The only thing I don't like so far is the character transport thing. The armor facings was a neat concept but only tanks that don't move ever care.

Rhinos are 11 11 10. Whoo how important that facing is
Chimeras are...does it matter? When was the last time you saw one?
Eldar tanks basically get to pick what facing you're shooting at anyway, so long as they argue better.
Necrons have weird shapes and 14 14 14 so they're a pain and the ones that aren't are to fast to get around reasonably.
Tau...do Tau have tanks? I've honestly never seen one.
IG? You're hitting front armor unless you're SM or Eldar cause dem beeches don't move.
Chaos, far as I can tell never got a vehicle other than the 12 12 10 omg it's in my face, oh wait it's immobilized maulerfiend.
SM vehicles are either irrelevant long range shooting platforms, irrelevant land raiders, or the afore mentioned rhinos which are only relevant because they cost zero points, and drop pods.

Tl: DR, facings wouldn't of been that big of a deal even if they did have any meaningful effect on the game.

so because GW wasn't able to price most of the vehicules correctly, it made sense to ditch the entire mechanism, and make the game more shallow ????

and the facings on the rhino were rather important, since you could kill one with the most common weapon in the game if you shot one from the back

Am I correct in my thinking of the following...

The Index books contain the warscrolls and points for the armies.
They have said they will alter points yearly to balance them.
These are temporary combinations of races/factions and eventually each race/faction will get its own codex.

So when they adjust points each year, every index/codex is invalid?
A new codex/index every year for each race/faction you play as the points in the previous one are invalidated?
This seems a far bigger cash grab than any previous edition.

If they were gamer friendly, the warscrolls would be in the books (and in new boxes of models) and the points would be free releases that would only be a few pages long.

I know GW are out for profit, but this sounds like the most gamer unfriendly sales model for any miniature game I've ever seenn

This is indeed worrying.

IIRC point cost won't be in the codex (only power level), and you'll probably have to buy the general handbook each year to have them. Yeah, it's a gakky move if it's the case

There will be an annual 40k Generals Handbook for points and rules updates - one book for everything. The 8th Ed Index and Codex books will be kept updated by this after their release - and no need to replace the latter anymore during 8th

Just found this on /tg
I will paint them as gravo-strips.

 streetsamurai wrote:
This is indeed worrying.

IIRC point cost won't be in the codex (only power level), and you'll probably have to buy the general handbook each year to have them. Yeah, it's a gakky move if it's the case

I dont think this is a bad concept as it allows for regular changes where neccessary. GW also offers an interactive FAQ website to get the community more involved and react to problems in the game. That one and the FAQ will be free

Not sure why some believe 40k will be an inexpensive hobby in 8th...

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
Hmm... I wonder if the Dangles will let any of the new marines into the inner circle.

Seeing as it is a shot that can be administered to upgrade existing marines - not a problem! Betting the Deathwing will be hesitant to get the shot however, until we get Primaris Terminator equivalents. Would be a shame to be forced to hang all those ancient TDAs into the closet.

A neat way to get the new Marines quickly into the hands of all players anyway...

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Am I correct in my thinking of the following...

The Index books contain the warscrolls and points for the armies.
They have said they will alter points yearly to balance them.
These are temporary combinations of races/factions and eventually each race/faction will get its own codex.

So when they adjust points each year, every index/codex is invalid?
A new codex/index every year for each race/faction you play as the points in the previous one are invalidated?
This seems a far bigger cash grab than any previous edition.

If they were gamer friendly, the warscrolls would be in the books (and in new boxes of models) and the points would be free releases that would only be a few pages long.

I know GW are out for profit, but this sounds like the most gamer unfriendly sales model for any miniature game I've ever seenn

Nope.

They're keeping the points to their own section. And if the AoS Battletome are owt to go by, probably up the back pages.

As I've said before, this is precisely so points can be tweaked and changed without invalidating entire books.

Is the crowl over the jet pack guy's heads the air intake for their jump packs?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Am I correct in my thinking of the following...

The Index books contain the warscrolls and points for the armies.
They have said they will alter points yearly to balance them.
These are temporary combinations of races/factions and eventually each race/faction will get its own codex.

So when they adjust points each year, every index/codex is invalid?
A new codex/index every year for each race/faction you play as the points in the previous one are invalidated?
This seems a far bigger cash grab than any previous edition.

If they were gamer friendly, the warscrolls would be in the books (and in new boxes of models) and the points would be free releases that would only be a few pages long.

I know GW are out for profit, but this sounds like the most gamer unfriendly sales model for any miniature game I've ever seenn

Nope.

They're keeping the points to their own section. And if the AoS Battletome are owt to go by, probably up the back pages.

As I've said before, this is precisely so points can be tweaked and changed without invalidating entire books.

But the books technically will be invalidated as the points are all wrong. It doesn't matter if this is printed at the back or interspaced on each page.
However, if the points adjustments are all in one book each year, that's not too bad. Far better than buying a new codex for every army every year.
Still, a free, points pdf each year would be better as you could put the extra pages needed with each codex. Then all your hobby money could go on plastic toy soldiers - which I'm sure have a way higher profit margin for GW than books.

Warhams-77 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
This is indeed worrying.

IIRC point cost won't be in the codex (only power level), and you'll probably have to buy the general handbook each year to have them. Yeah, it's a gakky move if it's the case

I dont think this is a bad concept as it allows for regular changes where neccessary. GW also offers an interactive FAQ website to get the community more involved and react to problems in the game. That one and the FAQ will be free

Not sure why some believe 40k will be an inexpensive hobby in 8th...

I don't know, paying for updated point cost every year seems tantamount as paying for the same thing numerous times cause they weren't able to do the job correctly the first time. Since I assume that theses books will be rather inexpensive, it is not a big deal, but it shows once again that while NuGW has really improved on numerous fronts (especially when it comes to communications with the community), it has also taken nickel and diming to a new height (the Twitch channel being a pet peeve of mine)

I wouldn't be so worried about GW performing a cash grab on codex and rulebooks. This is the same company that made AoS. In AoS everything is free except the models and the advanced rules.

- Basic rules are free
- Model's rules are free
- Matched play points are free (on the app)

You only pay for formations and allegiance books, but if i want to buy a starter set and some more minis and play, i only spend for the minis.

 Lockark wrote:
Is the crowl over the jet pack guy's heads the air intake for their jump packs?

Ultra ultra Marines don't need air intakes or real world physics.
Pfff.