40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**skarsol**

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Spoiler:

skarsol wrote:
em_en_oh_pee wrote:
MaxT wrote:
Forging the narrative with Taudar is now firmly in the Narrative and Open play box. Not matched play.

And i'm ok with that

Bingo. You want a narrative army? Play a narrative game. You want a balanced army? You are constrained by rules via matched play.

GW probably realized they couldn't have both without lots of issues.

So they restricted Tau and Eldar from hanging out, but Imperium and Chaos keywords are hunky dory? There's nothing about "Imperium" that makes things easy to balance. "Chaos" isn't as bad, but still lumps in more units than the others. Then if you include Forgeworld, oh boy...

They shoehorned narrative play into matched play in order to let all the Imperium guys ally together, but then used that same argument to not let the other Factions do the same. Dumb.

Imperial forces consistently work together. Chaos too. Xenos? Not so much. Not enough to justify letting them consistently pair outside of narrative. While the Imperium and Chaos are very consistent in their pairings.

Don't be salty. It wasn't dumb, it was likely meant to curb stupid combos (be it for fluff or balance) in matched play.

I was pointing out that you can't say both "Narrative allows Imperium to ally together" and "There's no room for narrative in matched play" together with a straight face.

**frozenwastes**

From the latest article on warzone ultramar:

"The story of the upcoming Dark Imperium box set is set in Ultramar "

That's really strange that the Dark Imperium box set isn't set in y'know, the Dark Imperium

In general, I like what I'm seeing. I am also enjoying seeing people finally realize that this really is the Sigmarization of 40k and what that means for their army. It's exactly what I hoped 8th edition would be and I am loving what I'm seeing in the index pages I've seen so far.

As well as this:

I know this sort of thing drives some people mad, but it's right up my alley. I have this crazy notion that people should game with like minded individuals and really work on the social side of the hobby. There's a reasonable selection of terrain already defined including LOS blocking hills, so this shouldn't be too hard.

**Therion**

em_en_oh_pee wrote:
skarsol wrote:
em_en_oh_pee wrote:
MaxT wrote:
Forging the narrative with Taudar is now firmly in the Narrative and Open play box. Not matched play.

And i'm ok with that

Bingo. You want a narrative army? Play a narrative game. You want a balanced army? You are constrained by rules via matched play.

GW probably realized they couldn't have both without lots of issues.

So they restricted Tau and Eldar from hanging out, but Imperium and Chaos keywords are hunky dory? There's nothing about "Imperium" that makes things easy to balance. "Chaos" isn't as bad, but still lumps in more units than the others. Then if you include Forgeworld, oh boy...

They shoehorned narrative play into matched play in order to let all the Imperium guys ally together, but then used that same argument to not let the other Factions do the same. Dumb.

Imperial forces consistently work together. Chaos too. Xenos? Not so much. Not enough to justify letting them consistently pair outside of narrative. While the Imperium and Chaos are very consistent in their pairings.

Don't be salty. It wasn't dumb, it was likely meant to curb stupid combos (be it for fluff or balance) in matched play.

I hated those Tau/Eldar alliances as much as the next guy, but to be fair, it's in no way balanced that Imperial forces get to mix and match from two dozen sources while a xenos force is stuck with 1 source. I like it from a background and narrative perspective, but there's bound to be balance problems.

**skarsol**

Swara wrote:
skarsol wrote:
Swara wrote:
No cross play between DG and Daemons (or any Chaos and Daemons) has me disapointed as well.

What do you mean? You can have an army of both under the Chaos keyword or <God> keyword.

I'm surprised you're not mainly complaining about Nurgle units no longer getting Deep Strike and so they have to waddle across the board.

All bonuses (tallyman, spells, auras) are all sub faction specific and not god specific.
It looks like I'll have to forget Tallyman and play a DG and Nurgle Daemons now.
As far as waddling, I'm used to that and played a drone heavy army.
Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture, but I'll see...

Ah, right. The Daemon Prince at least works for both DG and Nurgle, and the Daemon HQs buff CSM units with the Daemon keyword, but yeah, the CSM Lords and such don't benefit the Daemon guys.

**Kanluwen**

skarsol wrote:
em_en_oh_pee wrote:
MaxT wrote:
Forging the narrative with Taudar is now firmly in the Narrative and Open play box. Not matched play.

And i'm ok with that

Bingo. You want a narrative army? Play a narrative game. You want a balanced army? You are constrained by rules via matched play.

GW probably realized they couldn't have both without lots of issues.

So they restricted Tau and Eldar from hanging out, but Imperium and Chaos keywords are hunky dory? There's nothing about "Imperium" that makes things easy to balance. "Chaos" isn't as bad, but still lumps in more units than the others. Then if you include Forgeworld, oh boy...

They shoehorned narrative play into matched play in order to let all the Imperium guys ally together, but then used that same argument to not let the other Factions do the same. Dumb.

Well actually yeah, there is. Many of the Imperium things affect specific keywords.

Example?
Techpriest Enginseers.
Their "Master of Machines" rule only applies to <Forge World> or Astra Militarum keyworded vehicles.
Guard officers can only issue Orders to units with the same <Regiment>.
Etc
Etc

**Scylla**

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the faction rule? Either they must all be imperium or they must all be Adeptus Astartes... but all Adeptus Astartes models are Imperium anyway, so that doesn't mean anything. So does this mean you could have a Blood Angel captain lead a detachment of Silent Sisters, Guardsmen, and Black Templars? A Commissar leading a Ravenwing army?

**Liberal_Perturabo**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Oh great, my AdMech army just got gutted for the most part. Thanks GW.
Rangers and vanguard received a huge nerf with massive leadership reduction and no longer being able to shield them with Dominus or Cawl. Not to mention that AP4 galvanic rifles now only get a whopping -1 AP on 6s to wound, while scout sniper rifles throw out mortal wounds.
Doctrina imperatives are no more, while canticles got reduced in power.
Ruststalkers and infiltrators did get a cost reduction, while having most of their neat special rules removed, which was the very point of taking them.
Servitors did get +1 wound, but got significantly more expencive. Not to mention that heavy arc rifle is now some sick joke of a weapon, wounding most of the vehicles on 5+, while torsion cannon is just a worse version of multimelta. So much for technological superiority I guess.
The only units that received a clear buff are the units that were fine in the first place - techpriest dominus, dunecrawlers and a certain unit of extremely ugly robots.
There is one exeption though. Ironstriders and dragoons are now viable. That was a good change.

I completely disagree, there is a lot of good stuff in there, and the best part is that they're one army now and you can run what you want

What good stuff that I didn't mention? The only good things there are the things that were good to begin with + ostriches.

**Vorian**

Therion wrote:
Vorian wrote:
Therion wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Therion wrote:

You find other ineffective fighters to prove the point that yet another isn't? Just tell me if you went through every unit in the game and those two were the best ones you could find, and then we can continue this conversation.

Thanks.

You're dead set on not processing anything outside your viewpoint so there isn't much more I can do.

If you can't see the advantages of a T8 wraithknight that can shoot some tanks, charge some infantry, and then walk over that infantry, shoot another tank and charge something else without penalty...well...just don't take it.

Everything he can do is fine and dandy, it's the points cost I have a problem with. You're refusing to even discuss the points cost, which funnily enough is the balancing factor of every unit in the game. I don't care if Abaddon the Despoiler has 200 attacks at S200 for 200 wounds each, as long as he's priced based on those stats. My argument is that the Wraithknight is overpriced. It neither has the firepower or survivability to justify the price point. I can approach it's points cost from any angle, and it falls short. It neither provides enough wounds, or enough lascannons, or enough close combat attacks, or any combination of the three to get to its price point. Especially in a world where it doesn't fight at full effectiveness when it has the last wound remaining, but degrades immediately starting from turn one. It's also a giant model and a giant target for a plethora of very points efficient ranged weapons in the game that have a very real chance of taking it out in short order in a points efficient fashion.

The fact you don't even entertain the possibility that the price is wrong is pure insanity. You're automatically assuming that the price that the balance team came up with was correct, when the track record from GW shows that sometimes they price units even as much as 40% too high or too low. To me, the only debate is how much it is priced wrong. Is it 100 points too expensive or 50? You're just not the one to debate the subject with.

Cheers.

You're going in presuming it's incorrect. Which is silly.

The number of attacks is one thing, the ranged potential is another, the durability is another, the fact you can get out of combat and then shoot or charge is another. Then how all those things synergize together is another thing entirely.

Is it too much? Is it right? Is it too little? I don't know and nor do you.

It's silly to presume it's incorrect? How's that? If the possible variation of the points cost is from 1 to let's say 1000 points, there's 1000 different answers of which only one can be correct, and I'm being silly when based on my comparisons with other units I'm making the assumption that the exact figure of 502 points might not be the correct one?

You're right that I don't know what the correct number is, but I'm 99,9% certain that it isn't 502.

Obviously there isn't going to be an exact number that is "correct". It'll be worth more or less depending on what it's facing or what it's in an army with.

It is also only an opinion and people will always see it very differently.

There will be a range where it's "not too bad" and the majority of people will accept that it's ok..

It's silly to think they've got it wrong because they are speaking from a place of having used it in many games and you are not.

Of course they could have got it spectacularly wrong, but we don't know and just looking at how many attacks per point it's got is meaningless.

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

Scylla wrote:
<snip> does this mean you could have a Blood Angel captain lead a detachment of Silent Sisters, Guardsmen, and Black Templars? A Commissar leading a Ravenwing army?

You are correct.

**Ghaz**

Second Community article today is the Dark Imperium unboxing:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/31/dark-imperium-unboxed-may31gw-homepage-post-3/

The video seems to cut off abruptly so we'll see if GW updates the video later today.

EDIT Video fixed.

**Darkagl1**

So I was super stoked about 8th myself until I saw the DA rules. While the generic buff to deathwing (due to immunity to the now more important morale) and terminators is nice, I'm guessing the knights are a bit of a wash. More killy, but less survivable (I was hoping for either t5 when the unit contains x or more or 3w). The loss of stubborn and OW bonus hurts (though could be mitigated through forthcoming strategems). The ravenwing though hit hit super hard with the nerf bat. Admittedly the rerollable jink nonsense had to go, but jink being a 5++ after advance combined with loss of hit and run and the new ap system means they're pretty much just marine bikes 95% of the time.

**Vector Strike**

em_en_oh_pee wrote:
skarsol wrote:
em_en_oh_pee wrote:
MaxT wrote:
Forging the narrative with Taudar is now firmly in the Narrative and Open play box. Not matched play.

And i'm ok with that

Bingo. You want a narrative army? Play a narrative game. You want a balanced army? You are constrained by rules via matched play.

GW probably realized they couldn't have both without lots of issues.

So they restricted Tau and Eldar from hanging out, but Imperium and Chaos keywords are hunky dory? There's nothing about "Imperium" that makes things easy to balance. "Chaos" isn't as bad, but still lumps in more units than the others. Then if you include Forgeworld, oh boy...

They shoehorned narrative play into matched play in order to let all the Imperium guys ally together, but then used that same argument to not let the other Factions do the same. Dumb.

Imperial forces consistently work together. Chaos too. Xenos? Not so much. Not enough to justify letting them consistently pair outside of narrative. While the Imperium and Chaos are very consistent in their pairings.

Don't be salty. It wasn't dumb, it was likely meant to curb stupid combos (be it for fluff or balance) in matched play.

It stops xenos combos, but imperial and chaos?
fF they really wanted to limit combos, they should limit to having the same faction keywords. So no SM and IG playing together in matched play

**Latro_**

Scylla wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't understand the faction rule? Either they must all be imperium or they must all be Adeptus Astartes... but all Adeptus Astartes models are Imperium anyway, so that doesn't mean anything. So does this mean you could have a Blood Angel captain lead a detachment of Silent Sisters, Guardsmen, and Black Templars? A Commissar leading a Ravenwing army?

yes, yes you can!

The reason they have multiple faction keywords is that there might be buffs that a unit has which only effects those faction keywords

For army and detachment composition purposes you literally need to have one faction keyword consistent through every unit.

Like i said earlier cypher is imperium, chaos and fallen so you can run cypher in a dark angels army

Its not all CHAOS AND IMPERIUM WIN!!!

Genestealer cults and tyranids can now mix it up freely
As can all three eldar races

**Seito O**

Wow...
The ynnari still have this broken soulburst thing going on...

**Kanluwen**

Vector Strike wrote:

It stops xenos combos, but imperial and chaos?
fF they really wanted to limit combos, they should limit to having the same faction keywords. So no SM and IG playing together in matched play

You mean like how Guard characters can basically only affect Guard characters or how Marine characters affect Marine characters?

Man, if only they had thought of that...

Oh wait!

**Ghaz**

Latro_ wrote:
Scylla wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't understand the faction rule? Either they must all be imperium or they must all be Adeptus Astartes... but all Adeptus Astartes models are Imperium anyway, so that doesn't mean anything. So does this mean you could have a Blood Angel captain lead a detachment of Silent Sisters, Guardsmen, and Black Templars? A Commissar leading a Ravenwing army?

yes, yes you can!

The reason they have multiple faction keywords is that there might be buffs that a unit has which only effects those faction keywords

For army and detachment composition purposes you literally need to have one faction keyword consistent through every unit.

Like i said earlier cypher is imperium, chaos and fallen so you can run cypher in a dark angels army

Unless the 'Dark Angels' keyword says otherwise...

**flakpanzer**

If I remember right, the 40k Facebook page noted that you have to declare all of the attacks for a unit before rolling any dice.

This section of the rulebook seems to indicate that is NOT the case. Thoughts?

RESOLVE ATTACKS: Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together. The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

Kanluwen wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:

It stops xenos combos, but imperial and chaos?
fF they really wanted to limit combos, they should limit to having the same faction keywords. So no SM and IG playing together in matched play

You mean like how Guard characters can basically only affect Guard characters or how Marine characters affect Marine characters?

Man, if only they had thought of that...

Oh wait!

That is there, obviously.

What remains to be seen, however, is if there is any combo of units that is more powerful than the bonuses provided by those characters without relying on those synergies.

On this we will need to wait and see.

On the silly side, however, we can now have Custodes being ordered around by a junior officer. xD

**Latro_**

Ghaz wrote:
Latro_ wrote:
Scylla wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't understand the faction rule? Either they must all be imperium or they must all be Adeptus Astartes... but all Adeptus Astartes models are Imperium anyway, so that doesn't mean anything. So does this mean you could have a Blood Angel captain lead a detachment of Silent Sisters, Guardsmen, and Black Templars? A Commissar leading a Ravenwing army?

yes, yes you can!

The reason they have multiple faction keywords is that there might be buffs that a unit has which only effects those faction keywords

For army and detachment composition purposes you literally need to have one faction keyword consistent through every unit.

Like i said earlier cypher is imperium, chaos and fallen so you can run cypher in a dark angels army

Unless the 'Dark Angels' keyword says otherwise...

which it doesn't as far as i can read

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

Spoiler:

Indeed. Nothing so far.

**Lord Kragan**

Seito O wrote:
Wow...
The ynnari still have this broken soulburst thing going on...

And everything else toned down to kingdom come. Let's not forget that a jetseer now is worth 170pts rather than 120pts.

**Jambles**

Kanluwen wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:

It stops xenos combos, but imperial and chaos?
fF they really wanted to limit combos, they should limit to having the same faction keywords. So no SM and IG playing together in matched play

You mean like how Guard characters can basically only affect Guard characters or how Marine characters affect Marine characters?

Man, if only they had thought of that...

Oh wait!

This here is the crux of it - having different factions play together wasn't in and of itself the problem, it was that combinations of those units from different armies created effects that were greater than the sum of their parts.

So the change is that, while you can still field armies with mixed Imperial allies, you won't be seeing things like Azrael buffing a huge unit of conscripts anymore.

**Oaka**

Limiting most armies to three detachments is interesting. I was under the assumption that you would be able to add additional units as auxiliary support detachments and the penalty was -1 Command Point. It looks like if I want to take a Lord of War and a Fortification I'm left with one detachment for the bulk of the army (unless Fortification Networks don't count as detachments because they don't have the word 'detachment')

**Loopstah**

Oaka wrote:
Limiting most armies to three detachments is interesting. I was under the assumption that you would be able to add additional units as auxiliary support detachments and the penalty was -1 Command Point. It looks like if I want to take a Lord of War and a Fortification I'm left with one detachment for the bulk of the army (unless Fortification Networks don't count as detachments because they don't have the word 'detachment')

That's suggested limits for Organised play, not rules for Matched play in general.

**WrentheFaceless**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Oh great, my AdMech army just got gutted for the most part. Thanks GW.
Rangers and vanguard received a huge nerf with massive leadership reduction and no longer being able to shield them with Dominus or Cawl. Not to mention that AP4 galvanic rifles now only get a whopping -1 AP on 6s to wound, while scout sniper rifles throw out mortal wounds.
Doctrina imperatives are no more, while canticles got reduced in power.
Ruststalkers and infiltrators did get a cost reduction, while having most of their neat special rules removed, which was the very point of taking them.
Servitors did get +1 wound, but got significantly more expencive. Not to mention that heavy arc rifle is now some sick joke of a weapon, wounding most of the vehicles on 5+, while torsion cannon is just a worse version of multimelta. So much for technological superiority I guess.
The only units that received a clear buff are the units that were fine in the first place - techpriest dominus, dunecrawlers and a certain unit of extremely ugly robots.
There is one exeption though. Ironstriders and dragoons are now viable. That was a good change.

I completely disagree, there is a lot of good stuff in there, and the best part is that they're one army now and you can run what you want

What good stuff that I didn't mention? The only good things there are the things that were good to begin with + ostriches.

Kataphrons are still fine, skitarii guys are fine, rust stalkers are fine, dunecrawlers, kastellan and even the staff priests got good/better. Our sniper rifles also give out mortal wounds, you're comparing apples to oranges by comparing galvanic rifles to scout sniper rifles; they're bolt gun equivalents but better.

Cantles are no worse than other army wide abilities now in 8th

Grav cannons are still good, plasma kataphrons are very scary now, we've basically got army wide ignore cover, even Icarus arrays arent horrible now with no flyers. And Fulgurite Electro-Priests, holy crap did you look at them? They're crazy good.

The only unit that really got noticably worse are infiltrators, but their point reduction along with reduction of rust stalkers aint bad

**Grinshanks**

Really disappointed that now we have everything GSC appear to have been completely gutted.

Only positives are the Rock Drill and being able to ally with Imperial Guard in match play(sorely needed for Anti Armour now they've lost their primary mode of movement + weapon nerfs).

**davethepak**

Eyjio wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
Eyjio wrote:
I can make a marine list which out-shoots, outlives and outmaneuvers any of the Necron lists I've tried to make. For ****s sake, this is depressing. Maybe I'll wake up and it'll all be a nightmare...

You being unable to make good lists isn't the game's fault.

Feel free to try if you think I'm wrong. Marines do anything Necrons do but better. It's absolutely a fault with the game, the points are too high for necron AT - they cannot deal with big models at all. No other faction pays 75 points for 1 lascannon shot, where that's the cheapest possible option they have.

While I might not completely agree with the base assertion that "marines do it all better" - lack of readily accessible AT IS indeed one of the traits of the Necrons - has been for several years.

This has been countered by Gauss - being able to hurt anything on a six. This was not a "freebie" or "perk" of the necrons - this was a design choice they needed.

now that everyone basically this (wound on 6) necrons got instead an AP bonus.

This does not really translate as well as other armies heavy attack options. This is not a complaint - just an observation from someone familiar with the play of several armies....

**Swara**

http://imgur.com/a/afjxc

Can anyone figure out why Typus is 20 pts CHEAPER than the Lord while being quite a bit better?

Typus is a Psyker with a 2d6 pistol, grenades, gives 1 s and t to zombies and weapon is more powerful.. like wat.

**warboss**

Loopstah wrote:
Oaka wrote:
Limiting most armies to three detachments is interesting. I was under the assumption that you would be able to add additional units as auxiliary support detachments and the penalty was -1 Command Point. It looks like if I want to take a Lord of War and a Fortification I'm left with one detachment for the bulk of the army (unless Fortification Networks don't count as detachments because they don't have the word 'detachment')

That's suggested limits for Organised play, not rules for Matched play in general.

Where is the three detachment rule stated? I've been catching up and admittedly haven't followed every image gallery link for each faction but the pic on the last page didn't mention detachments but rather keywords/factions. It's not that I doubt you both but rather I'm just curious as to what else I missed.

**Kriswall**

Jambles wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:

It stops xenos combos, but imperial and chaos?
fF they really wanted to limit combos, they should limit to having the same faction keywords. So no SM and IG playing together in matched play

You mean like how Guard characters can basically only affect Guard characters or how Marine characters affect Marine characters?

Man, if only they had thought of that...

Oh wait!
This here is the crux of it - having different factions play together wasn't in and of itself the problem, it was that combinations of those units from different armies created effects that were greater than the sum of their parts.

So the change is that, while you can still field armies with mixed Imperial allies, you won't be seeing things like Azrael buffing a huge unit of conscripts anymore.

BUT...

In a 2000 point limit game, you can effectively play a solid 1000 point Space Marines army standing next to a solid 1000 point Guard army. With Xenos, you don't have that option. I can't field 1000 points of Necrons next to 1000 points of Tau. It's all or nothing. 2000 Necrons or 2000 Tau.

Feels very much like a slap in the face after pushing cross faction armies so hard.