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.
2017/05/31 18:02:14
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
its like salamanders players not having epic flamers now as there are no chapter tactics... you can still user flamers... its not like GW said oh no... salamanders cant use flamers anymore
Hahahaha.
No. Losing Terminators, Havocs and Chosen as actual choices in a specific Legion does not equate to losing buffed flamers.
Imagine your Salamanders instead lost Terminators, Devastators and Veterans. And all you were being told is 'It's still fine, you can use them, they're just not Salamanders.'
Meaning that, gods forbid, for whatever perk taking an All Legion X army has you have to lose it to take those. You can take them, but they won't benefit from the buffs of other characters around them or some of the psychic powers. You can take them, but they're now essentially a tax on force org slots that don't benefit you.
Losing improved flamers does not equate to losing units that have been part of your army for close to 2 decades.
Except you haven't lost any of those things - they are all there with the <LEGION> keyword
Actually, if you look at the Death Guard Army page, it forbids most of those units from selecting Death Guard. He has a valid complaint.
Ahh, I see ... that does seem rather perplexing. What a strange decision.
They'll obviously get the terminators back as a specifically named unit, but why stop them getting key worded generic units?
2017/05/31 18:04:26
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
ITT: people not understanding you can have your Havocs in your army, they just can't be Death Guard units and so do not benefit from anything related to the Keyword Death Guard. Makeup a new legion called Guard Death, pay for a Lord of Guard Death legion and look now your Havocs can reroll 1's. Wow that sure was complicated to figure out how to have my cake and eat it too.
2017/05/31 18:06:15
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
Kriswall wrote: Don't assume you know where I'm coming from. I'm a casual gamer who prefers competitive games to narrative games. I play 40k and not DnD for a reason. I like for there to be a winner, but I don't necessarily enjoy cutthroat, win at all costs play.
I had no cheese ...no formations ...no OP combos. Think more along the lines of a Combined Arms Detachment of Space Marines composed mainly of Scouts with small Allied Detachments of Necrons and Tau with an Inquisitorial Detachment thrown in for good measure. Was it fluffy? Yes, if you consider the Scouts to be Gue'vesa, the Necrons to be controlled by the Tau (they had some good conversions) and the Inquisitor being an undercover Ordo Xenos guy trying to learn how the Tau are controlling the 'Crons. Was it OP? Oh, feth no. It was terrible. It's also now illegal for matched play using a similar army size.
We both know that 1k won't be the standard. It'll be closer to 2k. While I might be wrong, I just don't seem the community at large halving the size of a 'standard army'. So, my Necrons, practically speaking, need 1300 more points of models before I can use them in a 'standard game'. My Tau need about 1000. My Space Marines need about 1000. My Inquisitor can hang out with the Space Marines, I guess.
Similar to my point of view. Wanted to sprinkle some Necrons for melee (and developed a fluff for that too), but now it's gone for matched play.
I think I'll talk with my fellas after some games if we can house rule it out
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
Funny thing is balance is hardly much of excuse when you have imperium with it's bazillion different factions to ally with while other armies then have zero allies. Balance as if.
It's typical GW pendulum "balancing". They hear complains about something, they just make it 180 opposite. Starting to look like external playtester influence was indeed quite small. Rules are rather typical GW style.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/05/31 18:10:35
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
I have a Skitarii question - the new Radiujm weapon special rule is:
"Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, that hit inflicts 2 damage instead of 1."
OK, so does that mean it adds an additional wound that the other player must then allocate, or does it mean that a single wound, once allocated, will cause two damage against a single model?
I think it's the latter based on the Shooting rules, but if so that's a bloody gigantic nerfing relative to the current rule - how many situations are you likely to find yourself in where you'd want to be shooting a S3 AP- weapon at multiwound enemies(who will almost always have decent Toughness and Armour), and where an opponent won't be able to use allocation to mitigate the tiny handful of extra wounds?
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2017/05/31 18:10:57
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
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.
So what is it? First you claim it's for balance. Now you are saying it's for fluff. Which one it is?
Balance it can't be as it's obviously not balanced some armies have bazillion allies and others don't have any...
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/05/31 18:10:58
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
its like salamanders players not having epic flamers now as there are no chapter tactics... you can still user flamers... its not like GW said oh no... salamanders cant use flamers anymore
Hahahaha.
No. Losing Terminators, Havocs and Chosen as actual choices in a specific Legion does not equate to losing buffed flamers.
Imagine your Salamanders instead lost Terminators, Devastators and Veterans. And all you were being told is 'It's still fine, you can use them, they're just not Salamanders.'
Meaning that, gods forbid, for whatever perk taking an All Legion X army has you have to lose it to take those. You can take them, but they won't benefit from the buffs of other characters around them or some of the psychic powers. You can take them, but they're now essentially a tax on force org slots that don't benefit you.
Losing improved flamers does not equate to losing units that have been part of your army for close to 2 decades.
Give up there seems to be a new breed of FANatic to go with NuGWplc It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you concede that AoS/8th is perfect.
Honestly if I did not recognise some posters names I would assume the new PR/media savy GW was paying for posts.
Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis
2017/05/31 18:12:04
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
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
Funny thing is balance is hardly much of excuse when you have imperium with it's bazillion different factions to ally with while other armies then have zero allies. Balance as if.
It's typical GW pendulum "balancing". They hear complains about something, they just make it 180 opposite. Starting to look like external playtester influence was indeed quite small. Rules are rather typical GW style.
Well.... yes and no. Yes in that Imperium can still mix and match units, but no in that those units can no longer buff each other - Azrael can no longer make a unit of Conscripts 4++ and Fearless. Your Space Marine Biker CM with 2+/3++ can no longer tank for all your other characters.
They have more flexibility in choices, but they aren't the same as before in rules sharing.
2017/05/31 18:13:18
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
So are you saying that as a Death Guard Player you want to be basically Chaos Space Marines+++, no? You gain some buffs and you lose flexibility. If you want all the flexibility of mixing Deathguard with CSM, you army has worse sinergyes.
Wheres the problem here?
My Dark Angels can't have everything Normal Space Marines have. They gain other units, other sinergies, and other rules... thats how you make Subfactions different.
The following units have been consistent to Death Guard since they first got Legion specific rules in Index Astartes - these units have been present in every incarnation (through their ability to be Marked as per the 3.5 Codex onwards)
Chaos Lords
Chaos Sorcerers
Daemon Princes
Terminators
Possessed
Plague Marines
Plague Havocs
Chaos Dreadnoughts
Predators
Land Raiders.
3.5 gave us Typhus and Chosen.
Now suddenly we no longer have Chosen, Havocs or Terminators. Sorcerers cannot take Palanquins - they cannot take the NURGLE SPECIFIC MOUNT OPTION. If that hasn't made you ask WTF then I don't know what will.
We're not asking for everything normal CSM have. But we are wondering why we've lost a quarter of our core choices since we because considered a sub faction. Especially something like Terminators. I really don't think a Dark Angel player should be trying to lecture me on subfactions when Chaos have long been neglected on that front and losing even more unit choices isn't how you make a sub faction, is it? You have how many different variants of Terminators and Bikes? How many?
Now only a CSM player.
2017/05/31 18:13:41
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
andysonic1 wrote: ITT: people not understanding you can have your Havocs in your army, they just can't be Death Guard units and so do not benefit from anything related to the Keyword Death Guard. Makeup a new legion called Guard Death, pay for a Lord of Guard Death legion and look now your Havocs can reroll 1's. Wow that sure was complicated to figure out how to have my cake and eat it too.
Once again, that is not my problem. I am afraid that they will be unusable with whatever rules come out with death guard in the near future. What then? So my plague marines picked up heavy weapons, and now they're suddenly weaker then they used to be and can no longer interact with the rest of my army. Yeah, that makes sense.
2017/05/31 18:15:23
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
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
Funny thing is balance is hardly much of excuse when you have imperium with it's bazillion different factions to ally with while other armies then have zero allies. Balance as if.
It's typical GW pendulum "balancing". They hear complains about something, they just make it 180 opposite. Starting to look like external playtester influence was indeed quite small. Rules are rather typical GW style.
Well.... yes and no. Yes in that Imperium can still mix and match units, but no in that those units can no longer buff each other - Azrael can no longer make a unit of Conscripts 4++ and Fearless. Your Space Marine Biker CM with 2+/3++ can no longer tank for all your other characters.
They have more flexibility in choices, but they aren't the same as before in rules sharing.
Rules sharing definitely took a hit. BUT...
An Imperial Guard army can take a unit of Space Marines and a Space Marine Chaplain to act as elite shock troops. The Chaplain buffs the Marines and generally ignores the IG. A Necron army CAN'T take some Crisis Suits and a Commander to act as a mobile weapons platform. Imperium has the advantage here. More options is almost always better. Imperium armies have more options. The synergy issue can be largely mitigated by making your Imperium army out of smaller same faction sub-armies.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
andysonic1 wrote: ITT: people not understanding you can have your Havocs in your army, they just can't be Death Guard units and so do not benefit from anything related to the Keyword Death Guard. Makeup a new legion called Guard Death, pay for a Lord of Guard Death legion and look now your Havocs can reroll 1's. Wow that sure was complicated to figure out how to have my cake and eat it too.
World Eaters player whose army suddenly has no restrictions other than Psykers whereas in third edition couldn't take Raptors or Havocs lecturing others who have had a third of their consistent choices for nearly two decades inexplicably removed.
World Eaters player who doesn't seem to understand how powerful overlapping buff bubbles is going to be in this edition, or perhaps neglects to try because he's going to benefit from it anyway as his army has no restrictions so gets maximum buffing.
Now only a CSM player.
2017/05/31 18:20:59
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
So are you saying that as a Death Guard Player you want to be basically Chaos Space Marines+++, no? You gain some buffs and you lose flexibility. If you want all the flexibility of mixing Deathguard with CSM, you army has worse sinergyes.
Wheres the problem here?
My Dark Angels can't have everything Normal Space Marines have. They gain other units, other sinergies, and other rules... thats how you make Subfactions different.
The following units have been consistent to Death Guard since they first got Legion specific rules in Index Astartes - these units have been present in every incarnation (through their ability to be Marked as per the 3.5 Codex onwards)
Chaos Lords
Chaos Sorcerers
Daemon Princes
Terminators
Possessed
Plague Marines
Plague Havocs
Chaos Dreadnoughts
Predators
Land Raiders.
3.5 gave us Typhus and Chosen.
Now suddenly we no longer have Chosen, Havocs or Terminators. Sorcerers cannot take Palanquins - they cannot take the NURGLE SPECIFIC MOUNT OPTION. If that hasn't made you ask WTF then I don't know what will.
We're not asking for everything normal CSM have. But we are wondering why we've lost a quarter of our core choices since we because considered a sub faction. Especially something like Terminators. I really don't think a Dark Angel player should be trying to lecture me on subfactions when Chaos have long been neglected on that front and losing even more unit choices isn't how you make a sub faction, is it? You have how many different variants of Terminators and Bikes? How many?
Personally I prefer to consider myself a Tau player, my Dark Angels are a secondary army The Palanquin one I'll agree that is a shame you can't take it anymore, but was to be expected having not model for that. (But in other cases like Rough Riders they still let options. It appears that they have erased equipement options but not units)
You can have Chosen, Havocs or Terminators. They can't be Deathguard, they can be marked as Nurgle, or they'll be in the future.
Death Guard will gain a ton of new and "exclusive" faction units like the Blight Drone, Poxwalkers, specific Psychic Disciplines and even more sinergies in the future, including a Primarch.
And for that you'll pay losing the probable posibility of not having sinergies with Chosen or Havocs, because you'll receive Death Guard Terminators.
Death Guard has never been so special as a sub-faction ever before as it will be in max 2 months before 8th launch with their own Codex.
So no, personally I don't see reasons to complaint as a Death Guard player.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/05/31 18:21:27
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
andysonic1 wrote: ITT: people not understanding you can have your Havocs in your army, they just can't be Death Guard units and so do not benefit from anything related to the Keyword Death Guard. Makeup a new legion called Guard Death, pay for a Lord of Guard Death legion and look now your Havocs can reroll 1's. Wow that sure was complicated to figure out how to have my cake and eat it too.
Once again, that is not my problem. I am afraid that they will be unusable with whatever rules come out with death guard in the near future. What then? So my plague marines picked up heavy weapons, and now they're suddenly weaker then they used to be and can no longer interact with the rest of my army. Yeah, that makes sense.
Some of this has been true for quite some time. Marked Havocs have been weaker than plague marines for at least 3 editions now (5-7). Sure they had T5 (as long as your standard bearer lived in 4e/5e), but no FNP. How did they miraculously get weaker for 3 editions. Now they are a bit weaker now that marks don't add benefits. They will be no more unusable than they are now (as in they are totally usable), they will just have less synergy than you would like.
2017/05/31 18:24:28
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
I can't find any rules describing what the <army name> gets you. I saw CSM had marked armies basically; there were a few interactions where you got army buffs if you pick matching units with the armies for some mini-restrictions (but all chapters will still be marines; all legions will still be CSM, etc. so the faction doesn't matter for most selection), but... that's it?
I thought that equivalent rules were promised... did I miss these? Are they coming later? Was it just a pile of BS where flavor was replaced with almost-inconsequential synergies?
andysonic1 wrote: ITT: people not understanding you can have your Havocs in your army, they just can't be Death Guard units and so do not benefit from anything related to the Keyword Death Guard. Makeup a new legion called Guard Death, pay for a Lord of Guard Death legion and look now your Havocs can reroll 1's. Wow that sure was complicated to figure out how to have my cake and eat it too.
World Eaters player whose army suddenly has no restrictions other than Psykers whereas in third edition couldn't take Raptors or Havocs lecturing others who have had a third of their consistent choices for nearly two decades inexplicably removed.
World Eaters player who doesn't seem to understand how powerful overlapping buff bubbles is going to be in this edition, or perhaps neglects to try because he's going to benefit from it anyway as his army has no restrictions so gets maximum buffing.
Maybe the power of overlapping buff bubbles is exactly why you have more restrictions.
2017/05/31 18:26:11
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
I can't find any rules describing what the <army name> gets you. I saw CSM had marked armies basically; there were a few interactions where you got army buffs if you pick matching units with the armies for some mini-restrictions (but all chapters will still be marines; all legions will still be CSM, etc. so the faction doesn't matter for most selection), but... that's it?
I thought that equivalent rules were promised... did I miss these? Are they coming later? Was it just a pile of BS where flavor was replaced with almost-inconsequential synergies?
The thinking is that they will come out later in faction specific codices. Which I find a bit disappointing as I wanted codices to be a thing of the past.
2017/05/31 18:27:46
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
So are you saying that as a Death Guard Player you want to be basically Chaos Space Marines+++, no? You gain some buffs and you lose flexibility. If you want all the flexibility of mixing Deathguard with CSM, you army has worse sinergyes.
Wheres the problem here?
My Dark Angels can't have everything Normal Space Marines have. They gain other units, other sinergies, and other rules... thats how you make Subfactions different.
The following units have been consistent to Death Guard since they first got Legion specific rules in Index Astartes - these units have been present in every incarnation (through their ability to be Marked as per the 3.5 Codex onwards)
Chaos Lords
Chaos Sorcerers
Daemon Princes
Terminators
Possessed
Plague Marines
Plague Havocs
Chaos Dreadnoughts
Predators
Land Raiders.
3.5 gave us Typhus and Chosen.
Now suddenly we no longer have Chosen, Havocs or Terminators. Sorcerers cannot take Palanquins - they cannot take the NURGLE SPECIFIC MOUNT OPTION. If that hasn't made you ask WTF then I don't know what will.
We're not asking for everything normal CSM have. But we are wondering why we've lost a quarter of our core choices since we because considered a sub faction. Especially something like Terminators. I really don't think a Dark Angel player should be trying to lecture me on subfactions when Chaos have long been neglected on that front and losing even more unit choices isn't how you make a sub faction, is it? You have how many different variants of Terminators and Bikes? How many?
Personally I prefer to consider myself a Tau player, my Dark Angels are a secondary army The Palanquin one I'll agree that is a shame you can't take it anymore, but was to be expected having not model for that. (But in other cases like Rough Riders they still let options. It appears that they have erased equipement options but not units)
You can have Chosen, Havocs or Terminators. They can't be Deathguard, they can be marked as Nurgle, or they'll be in the future.
Death Guard will gain a ton of new and "exclusive" faction units like the Blight Drone, Poxwalkers, specific Psychic Disciplines and even more sinergies in the future, including a Primarch.
And for that you'll pay losing the probable posibility of not having sinergies with Chosen or Havocs, because you'll receive Death Guard Terminators.
Death Guard has never been so special as a sub-faction ever before as it will be in max 2 months before 8th launch with their own Codex.
So no, personally I don't see reasons to complaint as a Death Guard player.
Yup, agree with all of this. I will note though that the Rough Riders do technically have a model, crappy and old though it is.
Is it hard for anyone else to read those Ork leaks? Maybe it's just my mobile device but the photos look like they were taken from too far away to be legible.
2017/05/31 18:29:42
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Admech + Ork leaks + much more(all info in OP)
Has anyone noticed the difference between Purestrain Genstealers 18pts for Genstealer Cult and Genestealers 10pts for Tyranids?
They have the same stats and same power level, but Purestrains cost 8pts more per model and the only difference is Cult Ambush and Unquestioning Loyalty. I admit Cult Ambush can be pretty good, but I fell like almost double the number of points is a little expensive.
/ BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / Fallout Factions: BoS / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion: CIS / WWX: Union
"Chaos" isn't as bad, but still lumps in more units than the others. Then if you include Forgeworld, oh boy...
<Dynasty> 
War Coven of the Coruscating Gaze 
~3000pts
Thrice-Damned Plague Corps 
~3250pts
Admech (TBN) 
