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.
2017/06/01 05:34:02
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
So they seem to get two attacks from their claws, while others listed only get one.
Aaaand yet another GW writing inn a way that makes it arquable what is RAI. If you have weapon(lightning claw) on two models it should be written in same way.
But yeah RAW warp talons gets 2 attacks. Guess that's to balance out previously lousy warp talons then!
Biggest change in new GW is they have guy in facebook. Rulewriting is same old same old.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 05:34:43
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/06/01 05:37:06
Subject: Re:40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
1) I know that you cannot charge a target you didn't declare (cannot move within 1"), but does that restriction apply to Pile-In and Consolidation? If the "nearest enemy model" is from another unit than the one being charged? I don't see any restriction RAW ?
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
7000+
3500
2000
2017/06/01 05:55:52
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
1) I know that you cannot charge a target you didn't declare (cannot move within 1"), but does that restriction apply to Pile-In and Consolidation? If the "nearest enemy model" is from another unit than the one being charged? I don't see any restriction RAW ?
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
1) yeah I don't see any restriction, so expect combats to "spiral" around and try locking in more units (without taking overwatch). Berzerkers can do this twice each turn for up to 12" in the Fight phase!
2) yeah no visibility restrictions in the rules, although some tournament organizers may continue drawing LoS from eyes and barrels.
Weazel wrote: Two quick rules questions:
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
Vehicles are now just like any other models, so yes, 360, LoS and distance measured from Hull not the actual weapon! (or even from closest point - so "the other sponson" for example).
I know weird - but that will speed up game I guess.
1) I know that you cannot charge a target you didn't declare (cannot move within 1"), but does that restriction apply to Pile-In and Consolidation? If the "nearest enemy model" is from another unit than the one being charged? I don't see any restriction RAW ?
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
1) You have 3" to pile in to any enemy unit you can get within 1" of. Edit: actually, even when you charge if you can end up within 1" of any enemy unit they are in combat too.
2) Yes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 05:59:30
2017/06/01 05:58:49
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
Sadly, apparently it was a real drag that a basilisk wasn't a riptide doing a hand stand or something. According to accounts in this thread, somehow vehicles weapon arcs were what made the last edition cumbersome. Odd that it was fine in 5th and 6th and apparently not worth considering that the addition by gw of two additional phases to the game in 7th probably in no way accounted for extended play time. But with the lovely abstraction of literally every single vehicle in the warhammer 40000 universe now operating as open topped transport at different targets somehow its much faster now, or something.
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2017/06/01 06:04:10
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
We are on about vehicle facings again, who knows when we will get back to Chaos whining!
Ive got a 1500 point and 2000 point list all ready to go. I was going to make a primaris list with Roboute, but seems kinda pointless seeing as they dont have any mode of transportation.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
2017/06/01 06:06:17
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
2) yeah no visibility restrictions in the rules, although some tournament organizers may continue drawing LoS from eyes and barrels.
Yup, gonna have to or I'll have no choice but to stick with 7th. It's just a bridge too far, especially to be then slapped in the face with every model splitting fire with every weapon because apparently that level detail is fine but a land raider not being able to invert its owns sponson through itself and shoot clear through its own hull.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: We are on about vehicle facings again, who knows when we will get back to Chaos whining!
Actually if you paid attention we're not talking about vehicle facings, we're talking about fire arcs. Also, is characterizing others as whining a polite thing to do?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 06:07:32
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2017/06/01 06:08:08
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Not-not-kenny wrote: Funny how poeple are complaining their armies got more expensive and here I am with my Tau lists that just got 100-200 pts cheaper.
A lot of people have made the mistake in thinking that EVERYTHING got more expensive. A Brimstone Horror costs 2 points for a model with T3 W1 and a 4+ invulnerable save. Not to mention the untargetable 'sergeant' can cast Smite. 2 points per wound.
Dakkafex is another good example of cost efficiency.
2017/06/01 06:09:24
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Actually if you paid attention we're not talking about vehicle facings, we're talking about fire arcs. Also, is characterizing others as whining a polite thing to do?
Seriously though, how else would you characterize your last few posts?
2017/06/01 06:15:46
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
oni wrote: Wait... So if I move one model out of the woods the unit loses cover, but if I put one model in ruins the unit gains cover? WTF?
What? The rules are literally the same for both. Units on the base of either gain cover, other units only gain cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the firing unit. They are worded exactly the same.
No they are not. The woods rules say the infantry unit must be 'entirely' in the woods to get cover. The ruins rules simply say the unit must be 'on' the ruin. Without the word 'entirely' it would generally be understood that as long as one model is on the ruin, the entire infantry unit would get cover.
It just need to be FAQ'd, but its sad to see something so simple (on the same page) slip past already.
Want to add craters into this jumble? Craters work on a per-model basis.
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
2017/06/01 06:15:50
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
You can park a tank behind a wall, completely obscured from view with just a fraction of an inch of a track sticking out, and your tank is still allowed to shoot all its guns at any enemy that that track can "see".
They might've taken simplification and abstraction a step too far for me.
2017/06/01 06:17:39
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
The Assault Cannon Razorback is 100 points for 12 6/-1/1 shots. Itll rip through hordes or gribblies, be a giant wall, and when you have five or six of them, provide that aweet sweet saturation.
Lascannons in the back to shoot the big things. Havent decided between Annihilator Preds to fire off four lascannons for 202, 4 devs with lascannons for 165, or a pred autocannon and two lascannons for 201.
Cant quite bring myself to use Drop Pods, especially since you cant drop into melta range. 105 points for not getting as close as you could before? Eh...
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
2017/06/01 06:21:19
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Crazyterran wrote: The Assault Cannon Razorback is 100 points for 12 6/-1/1 shots. Itll rip through hordes or gribblies, be a giant wall, and when you have five or six of them, provide that aweet sweet saturation.
Lascannons in the back to shoot the big things. Havent decided between Annihilator Preds to fire off four lascannons for 202, 4 devs with lascannons for 165, or a pred autocannon and two lascannons for 201.
Cant quite bring myself to use Drop Pods, especially since you cant drop into melta range. 105 points for not getting as close as you could before? Eh...
Yep, Razorbacks are sweet. Tons of wounds and a lot of firepower. 115 points for two lascannons and 10 T7 wounds, or 100 points for the 12 S6 shots. I haven't figured out what else is good in Marine lists though. Assassins seem really good, so I'm pretty sure those will be in plenty of lists because they can just jump in due to the Imperium keyword into any detachment. Because of the keyword rule the most points efficient list might be a mix and match of like 8 different Imperial factions in the same detachment. Take Razorbacks with Assassins backed up by Onager Dunecrawlers or whatever. It'll be pretty ridiculous because Imperium is the only one that can still keep doing that crap.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 06:24:03
2017/06/01 06:21:24
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
What balances it out is that it blocks LOS both ways. If you are smart you can use their baneblade block LOS against them....
Have you considered the move and shooting phases an abstraction or not?
have you considered the tank turning as something performed DURING its movement vector? Eg., a bunch of little turns rather than move, stop, pivot?
it makes more sense for a massive tank to turn in a vector than pivot on the spot, for obvious reasons...
Have I considered these things? Yes. Does 40k do a good job of modelling them in a realistic way? No. Would it be fun to break out a protractor and count every degree of rotation as you plan a realistic path for it to take in order for it to end up 6" directly to its right and facing the same direction? No. Is that even possible without exceeding its movement limit? No.
Yet you're willing to explain that with abstraction, while suddenly turning into an expert on tank turning vectors when it comes to pivoting in place.
This is why vehicle facings in 40k are dumb.
No, the argument of abstraction is just....abstraction.
Might require an imagination; An asset in short supply with surly gamers who have to make little derogatory snaps at people suggesting you use said imagination. Or other people quipping the term cognitive dissonance when they have no understanding of the concept.
TL;DR: lighten up
2017/06/01 06:26:07
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Galas wrote: Split Fire is good because it allow mixed squads to be relevant and make the lowly grunts something more that just ablative wounds for the Heavy Weapon guy.
It has nothing to do with abstraction or speeding up the game. You can speed and simplify some rules and add more deep to others. If the net result is a faster gameplay, I don't see problems with that.
amanita wrote: I find it fascinating that many of the people who are all for vehicles now being nothing more than rolling bags of meat bean counters also argue for the retained and I'd say wholly unnecessary complexity of variable power weapons (sword, axe, maul) that have so little bearing on this grand abstraction of a game. I'm also surprised how many people love the idea of removing USR's just so the same rule can be called something different under some other army or unit's list.
To each his own, so it would seem.
Because vehicles rules maked vehicles useless compared with all other options? I find unnecesary the variety in power weapons, thats right, but I don't find either exactly whats the bad thing of them existing. In the other hand, I can see many counter arguments for Vehicles Firing Arcs and Vehicles facing in the actual 40k of today.
Is just like, I don't know. People has complex reasons to like some rules and equally complex reasons to dislike others. Is not like they just point at random rules and say "THIS I LIKE, THIS I DON'T!"
I can totally see why you guys prefer vehicle facings, more complex rules for Flyers, etc... they have their reasons to exist. Personally I don't think they are appropiate system for the 40k of today, but I can see the appeal.
The problem is how categorically you (General you) come to this thread and repeat the old mantra of "IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I LIKE IS BECAUSE YOU LOVE DUMPTED DOWN RULES AND GAMES FOR TODDLERS, ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH AND THIS GAME CAN ONLY FUCTION IN ONE WAY, THE WAY I LIKE!"
"Why don't we play with paper tokens then?" "Vehicles are just bags of meat" are categorically and subjetive assertions that you use as some kind of universal truth.
Is tiresome and inmature.
Preach, my man, PREACH! Couldn't agree more. Facing and complex rules work for small skirmish games like Infinity and Shadow War: Armageddon. Personally I am very optimistic on how vehicles work now. The only thing I don't quite like is how blast weapons are now represented.
I will try my first game of 8th ed this weekend, with my tank heavy Imperial Guard. Will be fun to try, and I will see first hand if these new vehicle rules work well or not.
Alpharius? Never heard of him.
2017/06/01 06:28:42
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
No, the argument of abstraction is just....abstraction.
Might require an imagination; An asset in short supply with surly gamers who have to make little derogatory snaps at people suggesting you use said imagination. Or other people quipping the term cognitive dissonance when they have no understanding of the concept.
TL;DR: lighten up
At this point I don't even know what you're arguing for, especially since you're the one who addressed me in the first place when I was making a point in favor of abstraction.
2017/06/01 06:39:24
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 7th May 17 - Large Model's / CSM Faction focus
Nactor wrote: So the Avatar of Tzeentch can't cast Tzeentch spells ? Yeeah right. Way to go GW ... here is hoping for some change to that with an faction-battletome-of-40k-1ksons, but who am i kidding.
Gonna check with my meta about that saturday, as i am not going to play tournaments anyway.
I aim at something like pick tzeentch / heretic without roll, if mixed must roll which one. Why they did not do that for Magnus is beyond me.
Magnus is not the avatar of Tzeentch.
Someone did not read the text under the pic of him, riiight? I was referring to that.. .)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 06:41:43
2017/06/01 06:42:37
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Actually if you paid attention we're not talking about vehicle facings, we're talking about fire arcs. Also, is characterizing others as whining a polite thing to do?
Seriously though, how else would you characterize your last few posts?
The character of my posts isn't the topic, sport. Perhaps comment on 8th edition news and rumours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-DE- wrote: You can park a tank behind a wall, completely obscured from view with just a fraction of an inch of a track sticking out, and your tank is still allowed to shoot all its guns at any enemy that that track can "see".
They might've taken simplification and abstraction a step too far for me.
Yeah it's baby with bath water territory for sure. Once a vehicles has 50% obscurement, the only incentive to move is target being out of range or threat of being assaulted. Having fewer incentives to move vehicles just seems silly.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 06:46:57
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2017/06/01 06:48:33
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Is there a consilidation move when you kill the enemies unit? I mean there is a consolidation move I know that but I don't think that after you win a close combat you should have to consolidate closer to another enemy unit. Did I miss something?
2017/06/01 06:49:52
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Iago40k wrote: Is there a consilidation move when you kill the enemies unit? I mean there is a consolidation move I know that but I don't think that after you win a close combat you should have to consolidate closer to another enemy unit. Did I miss something?
The whole rule pamphlet is outthere man. Just double check real quick. Probs in the OP
2017/06/01 07:22:01
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
7000+
3500
2000 
