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.

UncleThomson wrote:
Drives forward, fires its guns and drives backwards again.

Again, no, that doesn't work. The game has rules for moving and firing heavy weapons. If the vehicle has to move to fire its guns, shouldn't it then have to do that in the movement phase? Shouldn't it then have to suffer the penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons?

You can't not move in the phase dedicated to movement and then abstract said movement during the shooting phase. That doesn't make sense.

str00dles1 wrote:

 RoboDragon wrote:
Admech players, infiltrators have been nerfed a fair bit but are far cheaper. What do we think is the best loadout for them? Tasergoads were better in pretty much every situation before but is this still the same?

Tasers don't wound T4 models on a 2+ anymore so I think power swords may make a comeback.

I made mine with taser goads. Lucky 6's means lots of hits. Not gonna happen, but 5 of them could pull 45 hits. And being STR 6 makes em wound your average target on 3s. Also built mine to have the blasters, so Pistol 5 in shooting in CC adds another 25 attacks, even though its str 3.

Hopefully trying a game of 8th fri with my Admech army so will see how they do. At the very least, its a good distraction from the rest of my army!

But really though, lets move the LoS to the sub forum for rules. I think its been beaten to death and spammed enough for now

Yeah I think the potential for the chance of so many extra hits outweighs the 'safe' option of power swords.

Do vehicles fire over watch like normal infantry now? I play against necrons a lot and tasers would be decent against a ghost ark but if they're overwatching 20 odd gauss shots I think it's too risky. I'm assuming since there is no facing that ghost arks can fire their full barrage from anywhere.

LoS for me should be : shoot from any point if the miniature has a base.
Shoot from the gun if it hasn't.
LoS can pass through friendly miniatures but can't pass through the firing miniature.

I'm in the camp of retaining weapon fire arcs on vehicles and giving it to monsters too. However, I feel any more on that discussion should be taken to proposed rules. I'll be watching that forum avidly over the next few months.

On topic, my 2000 point list is now 2534 points. How are your armies converting?

Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules

 Crablezworth wrote:

You could at the very least read what I've had to say, bucko. I've made the case, several times that fixing it would be a positive development, your selective reading of my commentary isn't justification to of moral outrage, it's just you being impolite. Sport.

Not trying to be impoilte, just tired of yours and everyones elses complaining for complainings sake. If you feel like you've made your case then you can leave it that at. Why keep arguing? What does it accomplish other than bloat this post and fan the flame? It's not even an interesting discussion anymore, just "This is stupid" and "No it's not" over and over. I doubt people have even played the game yet and seen for themselves how often this even becomes a thing.

I'm done now. I realize my own hypocrisy about arguing with you about arguing about rules. I will play my first game of 8th this weekend, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out, since I play IG with tank focus.

Chikout wrote:
Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules

On the GW twitch, or put up on YouTube as demos for everyone to see?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Chikout wrote:
Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules

On the GW twitch, or put up on YouTube as demos for everyone to see?

I think the games will be on twitch and the rules videos will be on YouTube. Anyone can watch the twitch games live.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

UncleThomson wrote:
Drives forward, fires its guns and drives backwards again.

Again, no, that doesn't work. The game has rules for moving and firing heavy weapons. If the vehicle has to move to fire its guns, shouldn't it then have to do that in the movement phase? Shouldn't it then have to suffer the penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons?

You can't not move in the phase dedicated to movement and then abstract said movement during the shooting phase. That doesn't make sense.

No... it just does not work in your mind. And if that's your Pov, you are entitled to it. In my mind a battle does not work like move stop shoot move stop shoot. Especially not one side then the other. the turn is an abstraction of vehicles, creatures and infantry maneuvering and firing their weapons at the same time. If you actually move during the movement phase it just means that the unit was moving a longer distance giving it less time to aim/assemble their weapons.

if you are fine that an Imperial Lascannon team can fire its gun from the backside of the spotter which is barely visible behind cover, I guess it also works for tanks.

P.S: I don't want to say that you are objectively wrong. I just want to say they are other possible ways to look at this decision of the GW designers that "they are doing it wrong"

 JohnU wrote:

Drahken_40k wrote:
Anyone see any rules for selecting warlords?

Any model can be the warlord, but it has to be a character to select a warlord trait

http://imgur.com/a/wdVuF

Can I make a Watcher in the Dark my warlord? Cuz if I can I'mma do that.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 JohnU wrote:

Drahken_40k wrote:
Anyone see any rules for selecting warlords?

Any model can be the warlord, but it has to be a character to select a warlord trait

http://imgur.com/a/wdVuF

Can I make a Watcher in the Dark my warlord? Cuz if I can I'mma do that.

A watcher in the dark is not a character

UncleThomson wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 JohnU wrote:

Drahken_40k wrote:
Anyone see any rules for selecting warlords?

Any model can be the warlord, but it has to be a character to select a warlord trait

http://imgur.com/a/wdVuF

Can I make a Watcher in the Dark my warlord? Cuz if I can I'mma do that.

A watcher in the dark is not a character

http://i.imgur.com/850PuNv.jpg

"(...)nominate one of your models to be your Warlord".

"If your Warlord is a character..."

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 JohnU wrote:

Drahken_40k wrote:
Anyone see any rules for selecting warlords?

Any model can be the warlord, but it has to be a character to select a warlord trait

http://imgur.com/a/wdVuF

Can I make a Watcher in the Dark my warlord? Cuz if I can I'mma do that.

I see your WitD and raise you a Bomb Squig.

Warlord Bomb Squig, best Bomb Squig.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Grinshanks wrote:
There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.

Yeah... see that doesn't make it any better.

Removing facings makes it easier to be able to determine the power of a unit. It allows you to math out the damage it can put out and point it without the player coming to the conclusion that the tank didn't do what it's points indicate.

I liked firing arcs. I don't really care that they're gone now, because that isn't the part of the game I enjoy most.

Has anyone has seen or remembers where it is stated that unit leaders are free?

UncleThomson wrote:
No... it just does not work in your mind. And if that's your Pov, you are entitled to it. In my mind a battle does not work like move stop shoot move stop shoot. Especially not one side then the other. the turn is an abstraction of vehicles, creatures and infantry maneuvering and firing their weapons at the same time. If you actually move during the movement phase it just means that the unit was moving a longer distance giving it less time to aim/assemble their weapons.

Hmm...

*thinks*

Hmm... (again!)

Very well said.

Ok, sit down for a sec because what I'm about to say might shock you:

I don't think you're wrong here. And really, with the above you've opened my eyes as to why people like alternate activation style turn systems rather than UGOIGO. I hadn't thought of it that way.

I still think "It's an abstraction" is a cop-out argument because, c'mon, a Land Raider should never be able to fire through itself and "But it's moving all the time!" doesn't cut it. And I still think manoeuvre and positioning should mean something, and the 8th Ed rules have removed a lot of that (not just for vehicles) with far too much oversimplification. But I can see what you mean!

UncleThomson wrote:
if you are fine that an Imperial Lascannon team can fire its gun from the backside of the spotter which is barely visible behind cover, I guess it also works for tanks.

In my opinion I've always thought that a model's base represents this. They have a base, so this base is essentially the 'area' they occupy and can operate from within. You don't need to turn them to face things because the base is representative of their 'zone of influence' (for lack of a better term. Vehicles, being inherently base-less (to a point, walkers are obviously something different), had to go with something else, and thus you had to use the miniature itself as the main form of measurement.

To put it another way, from a rules perspective a model's base is what defines it, but a vehicle's shape itself determines what it can and cannot do because it doesn't have a base. I like vehicle models to matter. In these rules they really don't. You could use anything to represent a vehicle. You could turn a vehicle on its end to make it taller (good luck getting away with that though!) and draw LOS from its underside (!) because 'vehicles', other than the specific reference to "hull" in the rules, don't exist in 8th Ed. Everything is a creature, essentially, and I just find that weird!

But what about walkers? Well that's always been a point of contention for me (and a lot of other people, I've discovered). It never made sense that a Rip Tide was an MC but a Sentinel was a vehicle. I think that vehicles should be treated differently and walkers should be treated like big infantry because that's the role they play. A Dread twisting its torso to shoot is no different to a Land Raider turning its sponson to shoot something, but vastly different to a Land Raider shooting its left sponson through itself to hit something on its right.

UncleThomson wrote:
P.S: I don't want to say that you are objectively wrong. I just want to say they are other possible ways to look at this decision of the GW designers that "they are doing it wrong"

Well of course they're doing it wrong. They're GW!

Tyran wrote:
Has anyone has seen or remembers where it is stated that unit leaders are free?

They are not listed seperatly in the points list so they cost the same as the normal squadmates. Everything else just wouldn't make sense.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Can I make a Watcher in the Dark my warlord? Cuz if I can I'mma do that.

no but I think an armorium cherub may be your Warlord.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ragnar69 wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Has anyone has seen or remembers where it is stated that unit leaders are free?

They are not listed seperatly in the points list so they cost the same as the normal squadmates. Everything else just wouldn't make sense.

very few exceptions, like Space Wolf Sergeants in Terminator armor

UncleThomson wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 JohnU wrote:

Drahken_40k wrote:
Anyone see any rules for selecting warlords?

Any model can be the warlord, but it has to be a character to select a warlord trait

http://imgur.com/a/wdVuF

Can I make a Watcher in the Dark my warlord? Cuz if I can I'mma do that.

A watcher in the dark is not a character

I just won't give him a warlord trait then.

No wait. Cancel that order. I'mma make a Munitorum Armoured Container my warlord. Yeah, that's the ticket! Lord Commander Shipping Container has arrived to assume command of the beleaguered defenders. May the Emperor's light guide his command!



And I'm totally shooting his storm bolter from his heroically oversized back banner!

There was an interview about the art from the new rulebook on warhammer live today. They talked about reducing the amount of freelance art and trying to achieve a more consistent artistic style. They kind of threw some of the more cartoon art they'd done under the bus. They also said that the primaris marines have been in action for a while when 8th kicks off. ( enough time to have veterans and marines interred in dreadnoughts.)

Good to know. I figured we'd start this edition "in media res", given the shifts to the galaxy map and advancements in narrative. Skipping some time allows for new stuff, as well as "historical" fill-ins if needed/wanted.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

No wait. Cancel that order. I'mma make a Munitorum Armoured Container my warlord. Yeah, that's the ticket! Lord Commander Shipping Container has arrived to assume command of the beleaguered defenders. May the Emperor's light guide his command!



And I'm totally shooting his storm bolter from his heroically oversized back banner!

And thus the Basic Campfire finally can be Warchief of the Horde, as it was its birthright!

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

UncleThomson wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 JohnU wrote:

Drahken_40k wrote:
Anyone see any rules for selecting warlords?

Any model can be the warlord, but it has to be a character to select a warlord trait

http://imgur.com/a/wdVuF

Can I make a Watcher in the Dark my warlord? Cuz if I can I'mma do that.

A watcher in the dark is not a character

I just won't give him a warlord trait then.

No wait. Cancel that order. I'mma make a Munitorum Armoured Container my warlord. Yeah, that's the ticket! Lord Commander Shipping Container has arrived to assume command of the beleaguered defenders. May the Emperor's light guide his command!



And I'm totally shooting his storm bolter from his heroically oversized back banner!

So does a Tidewall count as a single model or would you have to pick a specific section to be your warlord?

Battlezones article is up on Warhammer Community:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/06/01/new-warhammer-40000-battlezones-june1gw-homepage-post-4/

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And I still think manoeuvre and positioning should mean something, and the 8th Ed rules have removed a lot of that (not just for vehicles) with far too much oversimplification. But I can see what you mean!

I have the same impression, but I really want to try a couple of games before I make my judgement.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In my opinion I've always thought that a model's base represents this. They have a base, so this base is essentially the 'area' they occupy and can operate from within. You don't need to turn them to face things because the base is representative of their 'zone of influence' (for lack of a better term. Vehicles, being inherently base-less (to a point, walkers are obviously something different), had to go with something else, and thus you had to use the miniature itself as the main form of measurement.

If there would be a consistency in 40k about what has a base and what not this could really work very well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Well of course they're doing it wrong. They're GW!

So i could finally deny my opponent that 'slay the warlord' victory point forever if i play 8th and have my skysheild landing pad commanding the munitorum armoured container army?

nevermind, just had a look at building profiles.

Chikout wrote:
Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules

Do you have a link? I'd like to watch and have no idea what the schedule or location is.

 SirDonlad wrote:
So i could finally deny my opponent that 'slay the warlord' victory point forever if i play 8th and have my skysheild landing pad commanding the munitorum armoured container army?

if you can buy a skysheild landing pad... which i havn't seen as an option....

 matphat wrote:

Chikout wrote:
Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules

Do you have a link? I'd like to watch and have no idea what the schedule or location is.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/30/warhammer-live-schedule-may-31st-june-2nd/

Schedules are on community page - posted Tuesdays.

 Latro_ wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
So i could finally deny my opponent that 'slay the warlord' victory point forever if i play 8th and have my skysheild landing pad commanding the munitorum armoured container army?

if you can buy a skysheild landing pad... which i havn't seen as an option....

None shall slay Warlord Fortress of Redemption so long as his mighty +2 to shoot Bomb Squigs are manning the lascannons!