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.

 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....

It's in imperium #2.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 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....

It's in imperium #2.

ah... wondered where they all were! cheers not imperium faction either a lot of em so woo

interesting with fortification guns your guys can't fire them now only direct them at not the nearest unit... no more khorne herald manning a quadgun

 Galas wrote:
The biggest problem with the Vehicles facing, firing arc and moving rules, is that they are practical rules that take at literal value how the model is in the table, in a game full of abstract rules for every other aspect of the game.

Is the same reason why TLOS is so bad in a game without fixed sized for the models where you can have freedom to convert your units, the terrain, etc...

I agree. A majority of the rules are very abstract, and you assume positioning and movement of troops and vehicles is fluid...But then you lock in on very precise positioning for True Line of Site, which contradicts all of the other abstraction. Kind of hard to rationalize using both.

 axisofentropy wrote:

 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

I noticed a wolf guard is an additional model too and doesn't replace the pack leader so bloodclaws can contain 16 models and grey hunters 11.

I think that true line of sight is a solid compromise between what we see in other systems where the tables are very flat or lacking in variations. I look at flames of war and the tables are covered in terrain but it is very flat. You dont have giant ruins that you interact with or things like that. You dont have a destroyed warlord titan as a terrain option(OMG that was soooo cool to see).

Removing facings represents the fact that most of the time vehicles will be on the move, running around, ect which you cant do with the movement rules of a model. The model has to sit still at some point for the game to function.

Troopers taking advantage of these opportunities can be factored into the wound rolls or variable damage of certain weapons rather than it being the result of fixed positioning that is required by the rules.

I much rather the rules treat things as in motion rather than have it built into the rules that something is stationary.

One thing that I really enjoy reading about in the novels is only getting a glancing shot during the fight or having a weapon that shouldnt be able to hurt something take out something critical. Now with the rules we can do that. Will lasguns kill a land raider often? NOPE, but it is the sort of situation that when it inevitably happens is the sort of thing that your gaming group will talk about forever. The game in the past got too mechanical, it seems like the rules, while still being competitive and having tactical complexity, provide the opportunities to bring that back.

I also do like how most upgrade characters for a unit are free now. "Hey if you have the models or want to use them you can, if not no worries" It helps for me personally to see that a unit has a sgt leading them because he would be leading them, or that my deathwatch can decide if they want a black shield or not, things like that are just nice to have in the game.

Chikout wrote:

 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.

When?

lol anyone see the vortex missile launcher

d6 shots at anything on the board

so lets get 6
hit on 5's
lets say we hit em all

d6 mortal wounds - are you dead? roll a dice on a 6 - d6 more

so a potential: 72 mortal wounds with one turn of shooting XD XD XD


i'll take the formations detachment and 3 of them
1386pts
whee

I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.

Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?

 Flood wrote:
I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.

Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?

Keywords link, they don't define. They permit things to happen, not define those things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:

Chikout wrote:

 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.

When?

First ones are tomorrow on the stream, according to Rob just now.

 Flood wrote:
I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.

Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?

As far as we can tell outside of transports there is no list of USRs and what they do. If there is an exclusion or interaction with the keyword it is built into the profile. For example Fly does not have a section, but in many rules it mentions how units with fly interact differently.

So... I can take an Imperial Bunker and declare that my Warlord? Sure, no Warlord Trait, but it doesn't have to be a character.

 Flood wrote:
I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.

Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?

I'm still trying to find out what cavalry does.

Also if should be noted the designers are well aware of firing arcs as they still exist in Death from the Skies.

 nintura wrote:

Chikout wrote:

 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.

When?

As noted, the schedule for the week usually goes up on Warhammer Community on Tuesdays.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So... I can take an Imperial Bunker and declare that my Warlord? Sure, no Warlord Trait, but it doesn't have to be a character.

Sure - he's just off world calling the shots from safety... like a pansy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skarsol wrote:

 Flood wrote:

Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see?

Eagerly awaiting the FW Chaos book!

Please of please Osiron and the new Automata are legal 40K.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Flood wrote:
I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.

Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?

I'm still trying to find out what cavalry does.

Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So... I can take an Imperial Bunker and declare that my Warlord? Sure, no Warlord Trait, but it doesn't have to be a character.

Is the bunker possessed by daemons, or the work of a Tech Priest gone mad?

 Flood wrote:
I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.

Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?

Unless they have more books that they're keeping secret, there's nothing more to reveal.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 Flood wrote:
I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.

Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?

Unless they have more books that they're keeping secret, there's nothing more to reveal.

There are two FW Indexes that go up for preorder this weekend as well. So far we've only seen 1 page.

skarsol wrote:


Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.

Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.

Daedalus81 wrote:

skarsol wrote:


Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.

Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.

Fly is special because it has core rules that act on it (Movement, Fall Back). The vast majority of Keywords currently do nothing more than add flavour.

Anyone heard anything from the Eldar scatterbike meta army owners lately? I'm worried there's been a mass suicide.

Now that the SL is Heavy4 S6 AP0 it seems like a really poor option for jetbikes, which will be at +1 to hit if they move and fire.

Shuriken Cannon seem like a way better option now - only 3 shots but they are assault (so no minus if moving, and can still fire at -1 if the bikes use they're special 6" advance) - and the chance of a -3 AP on a 6 to wound... seems like a no brainer right?

If you want a wall of scatter lasers in the backfield shooting up advancing infantry, good old war walkers seem to be the way to go again,

skarsol wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

skarsol wrote:


Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.

Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.

Fly is special because it has core rules that act on it (Movement, Fall Back). The vast majority of Keywords currently do nothing more than add flavour.

The vast majority of keywords don't do anything for now. Most will be limited to just determining eho can ally with what, or which rules they can benefit from, but I can see others gaining special bonuses. Like The Bike keyword for White Scars, or the Vehicle keyword for Iron Hands.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

skarsol wrote:

Spoiler:

Daedalus81 wrote:

skarsol wrote:

Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.

Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.

Fly is special because it has core rules that act on it (Movement, Fall Back). The vast majority of Keywords currently do nothing more than add flavour.

The vast majority of keywords don't do anything for now. Most will be limited to just determining eho can ally with what, or which rules they can benefit from, but I can see others gaining special bonuses. Like The Bike keyword for White Scars, or the Vehicle keyword for Iron Hands.

Yes, that's why I said "currently."

skarsol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

skarsol wrote:

Spoiler:

Daedalus81 wrote:

skarsol wrote:

Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.

Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.

Fly is special because it has core rules that act on it (Movement, Fall Back). The vast majority of Keywords currently do nothing more than add flavour.

The vast majority of keywords don't do anything for now. Most will be limited to just determining eho can ally with what, or which rules they can benefit from, but I can see others gaining special bonuses. Like The Bike keyword for White Scars, or the Vehicle keyword for Iron Hands.

Yes, that's why I said "currently."

Missed that. Caffine must not be fully kicked in yet.

Forgive me for being thick, but the points costs for individual models, say Nobz, is that the point cost you would use when buying a Nob to lead a unit of Boyz in 8th? or is there a separate upgrade cost I'm not seeing in the rules leak.

Edit: basically, do Orks get their "sergeant" for free, like marines, or are we still paying for the Nob upgrade to the squad.

Again sorry if this was covered.

 lord marcus wrote:
Has anyone seen the limited edition squad gw just announced that is Japan only?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/31/space-marine-heroes-in-japan/

Have to shift that old stock of Mini-Marines somehow

montybman wrote:
Forgive me for being thick, but the points costs for individual models, say Nobz, is that the point cost you would use when buying a Nob to lead a unit of Boyz in 8th? or is there a separate upgrade cost I'm not seeing in the rules leak.

Again sorry if this was covered.

No, the Boss Nob for squads is included as part of the squad (so basically free)

 Bonegrinder wrote:

 lord marcus wrote:
Has anyone seen the limited edition squad gw just announced that is Japan only?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/31/space-marine-heroes-in-japan/

Have to shift that old stock of Mini-Marines somehow

Oh cool, so I can just go buy tacticals and I can make those? Sweet!

 JohnU wrote:

montybman wrote:
Forgive me for being thick, but the points costs for individual models, say Nobz, is that the point cost you would use when buying a Nob to lead a unit of Boyz in 8th? or is there a separate upgrade cost I'm not seeing in the rules leak.

Again sorry if this was covered.

No, the Boss Nob for squads is included as part of the squad (so basically free)

Ok, thanks a bunch.

montybman wrote:
Forgive me for being thick, but the points costs for individual models, say Nobz, is that the point cost you would use when buying a Nob to lead a unit of Boyz in 8th? or is there a separate upgrade cost I'm not seeing in the rules leak.

Again sorry if this was covered.

Boyz say you may trade a Boy for a Boss Nob. There is no cost listed for a "Boss Nob" so it's a free trade. Most "sergeant" models are the same cost as the rank and file. Not sure I've seen an exception.