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.

 jeff white wrote:
Thanks for that ...
I always enjoy reading your posts.
Always thoughtful, and respectful.
I especially appreciate your optimism re changing from random charge distances after constructive criticism in a year.
That helps assuage my anxiety.

Thanks for the compliments, and as far as the last remark, happy to be of service there.

 jeff white wrote:
What about multiple overwatch shooting? Hitting on 6s across the board, as seems to have been clearly indicated? I suspect that the trouble is that none of the play testers (mostly tourney types from what I could see) were playing during the early days of Overwatch counters.

Overwatch Issues? I have been around long enough, from the Rogue Trader era, to have seen the start of the Overwatch rules. Instead of shooting, drop down an Overwatch counter (like in Space Hulk, we actually used those). Then, during your opponent's Movement phase you could interrupt his unit's movement at any part during it. So, when he moved from behind one impassable (and fully LOS blocking) piece of terrain behind the next, Overwatch allowed you to shoot his troops while they ran for it. The rule was made in an era where just about every terrain was either soft cover with a Ballistic Skill penalty, hard cover with a stiffer Ballistic Skill penalty, or simply terrain that totally blocked everything. (I know Jeff White probably also knows this, but for other readers this might be new just as well.)

What is currently happening, being able to shoot at a charging unit, I would have probably called "Reaction Shots" or something like that. In a narrative sense, I find there is a big difference between lying in wait, aiming at an open space between buildings, and pulling that trigger when you see something move in the area you are 'Overwatching'. Suddenly hearing a jarring battle cry and seeing a bunch of lunatics jumping out of their cover, running straight at you waving swords, clubs, teeth and claws or whatever they are willing to use in order to gut you... that is a completely different thing. You might just want to indiscriminately spray your ammo in their general direction to make them stop. In part, I believe this is why Overwatch nowadays only hits on a '6' result on the dice, and why charge ranges were randomized.

As for being able to fire (current) Overwatch multiple times in a turn, why not? Coming from a roleplaying background before wargaming, I learnt that a single attack roll does not have to be a single attack. It might be a series of jabs, blows, feints, and then that one, single, telling blow that might get through defenses. I find Overwatch specifically, and shooting attacks in general, to adhere to the same principle here. We have machine gun weaponry at this very moment capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. How long is a turn in Warhammer 40K? Also a minute? More, or less? An Autogun is seen as a rapid firing solid slug weapon. Assume it can put out 30 shots per minute, hardly a serious threat by today's standards, one shot every two seconds. Being a rapid fire weapon in the game, it fires one or two shots per turn, depending on the range. Why wouldn't it, in a narrative sense, just go 'Bududududududududududud. Bududud. (firer waits for a second, and sees opponent peek out of cover to see if it is safe) BAM? Narratively; 60 shots, In-Game; 1 telling blow (or chance of that, as there is to hit, to wound, armour/cover/invulnerable save).
Besides, I believe they still said you cannot fire Overwatch if you are engaged in close combat? But you can retreat? Remember, there is nowhere to retreat to if you are literally surrounded by a blob of 20+ Hormagaunts.

 jeff white wrote:
This and charge distances, and the 1" bubble, these are the big problems.

Charging the Bubble? Like I said, from a narrative point of view (again, with a bit of imagination from my Roleplaying games) a lot is happening. Charging troops might not get far because they stumble and fall. Or they argue to much amongst themselves (I hear you, Orks and Khorne Berzerkers...), or because they approach far too cautiously on account of incoming fire. Not fire that is actually rolled for as part of game rules except for Overwatch, but the din of war that hangs around a battlefield. Sudden explosions, and the crack of machinegun fire might have them keep their heads low (and as such not run too far, ever tried running forward with your head down?). Even fearless troops might just be cautious, as dead men slay no enemies.

Now, the real problems arise with flat random charge range, and different movement stats. Though it is but a one in thirtysix chance, somebody might roll 12 for the charge range. A 6" Movement Space Marine with such a roll just doubled his Movement for the purposes of the charge, and tripled his total Movement to 6" Movement plus 12" charge. Let's say an Eldar Howling Banshee with a Movement 7 (assumption, for the sake of this arguement) rolls the same and has no special rules affecting her charge distance rolls. She didn't get double her Movement, as double 7" would have been 14", and the flat roll never gets past 12". If the same is rolled for a hypothetical Squat with a 3" Movement stat, the Space Dwarf would have quadruppled his regular Movement total!
However... incorporating the base Movement stat in the charge distance, and adding, say, a single D6, doesn't take away all problems I just pointed out, that only alleviates them somewhat. A Howling Banshee with a hypothetical Movement 7" and no special rules for charging, still can't double her Movement for the charge, even if the absolute minimum has just become 8, as opposed to 2 from a flat 2d6 roll. She just had a 7" Move, plus 7+1d6, for a maximum total of 20" that turn. That Squat still quadruples his Movement for that turn if he moves 3", then charges 3"+1d6 and rolls a 6 for a total of 12" that turn. Which is, by the way, only a one in six chance. And the banshee didn't even triple her total movement to 21"... The Banshee gets farther, absolutely, but the Squat goes faster, relatively.
As such, I agree that any randomization of Movement offers odd experiences sometimes. Especially with different Movement rates. And we still do not know anything about Movement affecting special rules, really. Will Eldar really only get a 7" Movement to represent their natural speed and grace, and no longer something like Fleet? Their finalized unit profiles might tell us more. Would hypothetical Squats actually be able to charge 2d6 despite a low base Movement rate? We'll probably never know, but if they did make a comeback, they might as well have a limit on their charge distances.

As far as the 1" Bubble goes, I don't mind. Practically, it allows your models to stand apart a bit. With forced base contact I sometimes found that Hormagaunts from the Tyranids army couldn't actually be in base contact. They are often built in a lunging pose, leaning forward quite far, often extending their arms with scything claws as well. I always thought it looked silly to have to put my Hormagaunts against my opponent's models backwards, just so their base could touch the opponent's model's bases.
Also, what is Melee Range? If you only have a knife, your effective melee range is just slightly longer than your arm, with the blade extended, and then your ability to leap forward has to be added to the calculation. Ever watched a fencing match? Most fencers are fast, able to leap forward and close range fast. Also, the good ones have such balance, that their range is actually their blade, their arm, and a good bit of their upper body as well. Now add a pike formation somewhere, which might allow people in the third or fourth rank to add a little stabbing to their unit's effective combat capabilities. A lone fighter with a pike has quite an impressive range. However, if you do manage to get past the stabby bit, he better drop the pike draw a sword or dagger, and start defending himself just that tiny bit closer and personal. Like in AoS, I wouldn't mind if melee typed weapons such as Rough Rider Hunting Lances would have a 2" or 3" range for their close combat attacks. The same for an Eldritch Spear or a Hive Tyrant sized Bone Sword. As you can see, I think Melee range is quite flexible.

 jeff white wrote:
Vehicles without AV - OK, I can see the upside, let's see how it goes.

Tough Vehicles? I have seen this in Rogue Trader. It worked. Just as I have seen the Lascannons deal more than 1 damage (In RT they actually did 2d6!) and that worked too. Far better than those clear plastic aiming templates which you used on a scematic for the vehicle, where even your Boltgun shot would 'scatter' and you would still have to hit a point on the targeting matrix that fell within the outlines of the vehicle data sheet. Because of this, I never, ever, hit a warwalker's spindly legs. Really, google that from 2nd edition!

 jeff white wrote:
Some of the changes are positive out of the box, too - pistols, for example, seem like they are being handled better.

Pistols and Close Combat When I force you back in close combat, by a forceful kick, or a wide swing with a sword, I might have a chance to aim and pull a trigger before you re-establish close quarters fighting by coming at me again. From what I can tell, this has been incorporated into the new rules by allowing pistols, and only pistols, to be used when within 1" of the enemy. If this means pistols no longer grant a bonus attack, but they can actually be fired more than once or twice in a battle (because of your model being locked in close combat, and pistols adding an attack instead of firing), so be it, and it already feels like a better solution. Still have to find out if it really works like that, and if it works at all, but the first impression is a good one.

 jeff white wrote:
And I have hope that psychic and warlord stuff will no longer be random, but rather paid for in points.

Right there with you. We are still talking about GW, who kept random charge distances in there, but we can hope, and dream. And badger the customer support rules guys with constructive customer feedback for the next yearly rules update, of course.

 jeff white wrote:
Anyways, thanks for the well reasoned and encouraging post.
Bravo.[/quite]

You're welcome, and thanks again for the compliments.

Cheers.

Do we really need more "super elite godlike warriors" in the Imperium? This is getting pretty ridiculous at some point. Your basic grunt, the Cadian soldiers, was a brainwashed ,trained since the age of 6 years old by ruthless drill seargent to fight an apocalyptic war, trooper. the least of these guys would make real world special forces look like mooks. Then there is the Scions are just like that but with better gear ridiculously more brutal and harsh training. Then there is the Skitarii, elite soldiers who happen to be cyborg and equipped with the most advance technology in the Imperium. Even more advance are the Sisters of Battle who have all the training of the Scions, power armors and blessed by the Emperor to make them transcend what normal humans can do. Than, finally, there is Space Marines who in addition to the insane training, are genetically advance and biological powerhourse. There is so much power fantasy in 40K right now, that even describing it has a pornographic undertone. Now, we will have bigger, greater and stronger Space Marines (like if those we had right now were not enough)? What could they possibly bring of new and original to the Imperium. Rough Marines would have been more appropriate, weaker, genetically enhance soldiers that could be a throw back to what Space Marines were back in 1st Eddition for example. What about other minor faction of the Imperium with a bit more character and establishment like the Adeptus Arbites, Rogue Traders or even cheap militia? To me those numarines are a real deception. If possible, I would have prefered them to be Chaos aligned to create a sense of dread.

I didn't vote. We need other options besides yes and no. I wasn't excited before, and I am not less excited now either. As someone said, I am overly cautious. While GW has made mistakes before, I will give them the chance they can turn it around.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
What about multiple overwatch shooting? Hitting on 6s across the board, as seems to have been clearly indicated? I suspect that the trouble is that none of the play testers (mostly tourney types from what I could see) were playing during the early days of Overwatch counters.

Overwatch Issues? I have been around long enough, from the Rogue Trader era, to have seen the start of the Overwatch rules. Instead of shooting, drop down an Overwatch counter (like in Space Hulk, we actually used those). Then, during your opponent's Movement phase you could interrupt his unit's movement at any part during it. So, when he moved from behind one impassable (and fully LOS blocking) piece of terrain behind the next, Overwatch allowed you to shoot his troops while they ran for it. The rule was made in an era where just about every terrain was either soft cover with a Ballistic Skill penalty, hard cover with a stiffer Ballistic Skill penalty, or simply terrain that totally blocked everything. (I know Jeff White probably also knows this, but for other readers this might be new just as well.)

What is currently happening, being able to shoot at a charging unit, I would have probably called "Reaction Shots" or something like that.

As for being able to fire (current) Overwatch multiple times in a turn, why not? Coming from a roleplaying background before wargaming, I learnt that a single attack roll does not have to be a single attack. It might be a series of jabs, blows, feints, and then that one, single, telling blow that might get through defenses. I find Overwatch specifically, and shooting attacks in general, to adhere to the same principle here. We have machine gun weaponry at this very moment capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. How long is a turn in Warhammer 40K? Also a minute? More, or less? An Autogun is seen as a rapid firing solid slug weapon. Assume it can put out 30 shots per minute, hardly a serious threat by today's standards, one shot every two seconds. Being a rapid fire weapon in the game, it fires one or two shots per turn, depending on the range. Why wouldn't it, in a narrative sense, just go 'Bududududududududududud. Bududud. (firer waits for a second, and sees opponent peek out of cover to see if it is safe) BAM? Narratively; 60 shots, In-Game; 1 telling blow (or chance of that, as there is to hit, to wound, armour/cover/invulnerable save).
Besides, I believe they still said you cannot fire Overwatch if you are engaged in close combat? But you can retreat? Remember, there is nowhere to retreat to if you are literally surrounded by a blob of 20+ Hormagaunts.

 jeff white wrote:
This and charge distances, and the 1" bubble, these are the big problems.

Charging the Bubble? Like I said, from a narrative point of view (again, with a bit of imagination from my Roleplaying games) a lot is happening. Charging troops might not get far because they stumble and fall. Or they argue to much amongst themselves (I hear you, Orks and Khorne Berzerkers...), or because they approach far too cautiously on account of incoming fire. Not fire that is actually rolled for as part of game rules except for Overwatch, but the din of war that hangs around a battlefield. Sudden explosions, and the crack of machinegun fire might have them keep their heads low (and as such not run too far, ever tried running forward with your head down?). Even fearless troops might just be cautious, as dead men slay no enemies.

Now, the real problems arise with flat random charge range, and different movement stats.
...
Pistols and Close Combat When I force you back in close combat, by a forceful kick, or a wide swing with a sword, I might have a chance to aim and pull a trigger before you re-establish close quarters fighting by coming at me again. From what I can tell, this has been incorporated into the new rules by allowing pistols, and only pistols, to be used when within 1" of the enemy. If this means pistols no longer grant a bonus attack, but they can actually be fired more than once or twice in a battle (because of your model being locked in close combat, and pistols adding an attack instead of firing), so be it, and it already feels like a better solution. Still have to find out if it really works like that, and if it works at all, but the first impression is a good one.

Why should a Marine hit on 6s for 'reaction shots' while a grot gets the same?
And though I appreciate the depth and clarity of your analysis - you present as an extremely reasonable person - I can't suspend my disbelief on this one.
In fact, it is exactly my RPG background that sees this as a sloppy hole in the simulation, with grots caught in a comic loop of reaction shots until the cultists stop coming or finally make it in, when my sense of realism demands that they lay down suppressing fire in the direction of one threat only to be overwhelmed by another...
Sure, I can grant that realism isn't everything, but given that the mechanic favors 4 point tossaways for unlimited 1 in 6s over stolid and religiously trained professionals for the same, well this is one aspect of the scenario that my brain can't stomach. Hence, the poll, and the 'no' vote... Excitement done.

I am willing to start up 40k again because of what I have seen released so far. I lost a lot of interest site 3rd, and have lost even more interest each edition afterwards. I sold everything off in 7th because I was just sick of where the game was headed.

 Rippy wrote:

 SpinCycleDreadnought wrote:
I loathe the term "Numarines" cuz it sounds jarring to me. (I call them Ultra Marines instead. Made by ultramarines, but +1. Whatever.)

I loathe nu-marines too, mainly because someone on 4chan said I have a nu-male haircut I don't really know what that means, but I don't like it!

 SpinCycleDreadnought wrote:
I'm keenish for the new edition, though I'm not keen anymore for Death Guard. Thought they'd be out by now or pre-orders by this week.

>being this impatient
I don't think the Slow Advance of the Death Guard suits you!! (TIC)

Ha, quoted for truth! I used to love the 'turtle' strategy in RTS games, back in the day. Used to slowly expand over initially claimed turf. Nowadays I seem to want to be like an Eldar, speedy, killy but made of glass. Hence the Dark Eldar They're about as speedy, killy and glassy you can get. Plus Biel-Tan is busted, so regular Eldar for me is out. Damn Eldrad, making his own Avatar with blackjack and hookers. Not only that, but if the DG are in the starter, I don't want to be DG player #153,679.

The combination of movement, overwatch and charging (the latter being random) seems to lend itself towards actual tactics and thought as opposed to WTFOMGBBQ levels of high S, high RoF weapons. Shoot a unit from afar, move in assaulters, whittle the unit down some more and charge in from ~6-8". Overwatching more than once sounds bad, but really, if the first charge goes off, then there's no more overwatch.

Davor wrote:
I wasn't excited before, and I am not less excited now either

There is your answer, no.

 jeff white wrote:
Why should a Marine hit on 6s for 'reaction shots' while a grot gets the same?
And though I appreciate the depth and clarity of your analysis - you present as an extremely reasonable person - I can't suspend my disbelief on this one.
In fact, it is exactly my RPG background that sees this as a sloppy whole in the simulation, with grots caught in a comic loop of reaction shots until the cultists stop coming or finally make it in, when my sense of realism demands that they lay down suppressing fire in the direction of one threat only to be overwhelmed by another...
Sure, I can grant that realism isn't everything, but given that the mechanic favors 4 point tossaways for unlimited 1 in 6s over stolid and religiously trained professionals for the same, well this is one aspect of the scenario that my brain can't stomach. Hence, the poll, and the 'no' vote... Excitement done.

I tend to agree with your points here. I understand why your suspension of disbelief takes a hit when comparing Grots to Space Marines and not seeing any difference between the two with regards to Overwatch chances to hit. However, even Space Marines get surprised sometimes. Even they can be ambushed, or bull-rushed. Unlikely, but possible.

In a way, I have been thinking how to mitigate this, as well, but that would have to be a house rule. Untill GW adopts (something like) it and changes it into the standard rule. One way to handle this sort of difference, is the Leadership check. Make a Leadership test against the lowest Leadership score in the unit firing Overwatch. Failure? Only hitting on sixes. Success? Full Ballistic Skill (or Ballistic Skill -1 for reaction time and some such). This is what the old Rogue Trader era Cool statistic would have been perfect for. Ah, the good old days...

Another thing we have no real precedent for right now, is GW's new communication structure, their community feedback. I have never, ever, seen them so active in the online community. Perhaps we should just play a few games when the rules are available (and complete...), and start to provide customer feedback. No need to spam their Warhammer 40K facebook page with long rants, ending in active threats. No need to simply state "The rools suxxorz, because my Eldar now Suxxorz more than Suxxorzzzz!", but actually provide constructive criticism. In numbers. If one person mentions he doesn't like random charge distances or Overwatch hitting on just a '6', that's a fluke. If 10 say they don't like it, that opinion is becoming just a bit more solid. If 10.000 people support the opinion that Overwatch hitting on just a '6' is bad or that random charge distances should go the way of the dinosaurs, that becomes a pretty big opinion. When this pretty big opinion is then presented to GW in a clear and constructive manner on their facebook page as customer feedback, then they have something to prove. They have to prove their claim that they are now actively listening to us.

On the other hand, perhaps Overwatch is kept as ineffective as it is currently with a reason. Like I said, I guess we'll have to play a couple of games, and not just two or three either, to see how all new rules mesh together. Perhaps Rapid Fire weapons are now unable to fire twice at half range, but get extra shots against charging foes, or they allow Overwatch at full Ballistic Skill. I don't know, because I still haven't seen the actual rules for Rapid Fire weapons. Perhaps the ability to just walk out of combat, and have other units fire with all they have at the close combat units that have just been left standing there, is a real game breaker. When adding a stronger Overwatch mechanic to this, one might stop seeing melee armies altogether. I know this does nothing to alleviate your just claim that Grots and Space Marines have different training levels which are totally ignored in the rules for Overwatch, but it does show at least an attempt at game rule balance. If Overwatch were made stronger by going for full BS, or full BS with a -1 penalty, it might also strengthen all those shooting armies, turn 8th edition into yet another Ranged Weapon Fest.

As such, I understand your reaction, your vote of 'no' with regards to your excitement. And you are free to voice that opinion. My own vote of 'yes' stems from the fact that, though there are a couple of things I don't agree with, there are far more changes I can agree with. And the fact that there is probably a lot of stuff we still don't know. And for those things we all seem to disagree on, there is GW's claim of heightened cummunity involvement.

All we have to do now is to wait for a couple of years, and scour these forums for threads about "GW Customer Feedback is a hoax", or more "GW Suxxorz; Overwatch is still straight '6' to hit for everybody!"

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:

As such, I understand your reaction, your vote of 'no' with regards to your excitement. And you are free to voice that opinion. My own vote of 'yes' stems from the fact that, though there are a couple of things I don't agree with, there are far more changes I can agree with. And the fact that there is probably a lot of stuff we still don't know. And for those things we all seem to disagree on, there is GW's claim of heightened cummunity involvement.

All we have to do now is to wait for a couple of years, and scour these forums for threads about "GW Customer Feedback is a hoax", or more "GW Suxxorz; Overwatch is still straight '6' to hit for everybody!"

And wait we shall for an opportunity to test their metal. Well said sir!

As much as I was disappointed to see the random charge distance and overwatch stay, I am still very much excited about 8th edition. As much for the rules, as for the community engagement and communication with us as players. It's nice to see GW moving in a more positive direction for once.

I wasn't excited to start with, since I really do not like the idea of GW listening to the community. A large portion of you guys just like to play an other game / other aspects of the game than I do. I am one of those players who likes dnd 3.5 rules and 2.0 adventures over dnd 5.0 and actually enjoyed playing 5th edition wfb more than AoS and my local meta did not have any of the competitive issues most forum users seemed to have no grav spam, deathstars or horrible eldar and tau lists. So 7th wasn't as broken for me as it appears to be for most of you, while it allows me to build the army I loved to play with ( as long as it wasn't orks) . Some of the reveals I like others I don't. We will see if this re-balancing was worth the shakeup / simplification. The loss of templates, AV, being safe in close combat and the buff of overwatch makes me kinda sad but who knows perhaps the game is balanced perfectly and has a great flow. it might just all be worth it.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Rules look way better thus far than 7E, but given how atrocious 7E plays, not sure how much that says. Either way, rules wise, we're looking better.

NuMarines sound stupid and, in classic GW style, may be the turd in the punch bowl they always seem to have to go out of their way to include.

All they had to do was copy/paste most of the ruleset for AoS and be done with it, and we would have had a fantastic game already. Instead they're just adding a bunch of crap for what feels to be just the sake of it.

As for NuMarines, all they had to do was release some new kits and call it a day. I appreciate a move to a more correct scale, but having to fluff them in, especially with GW's track record for just being horrible with their own fluff, means the result is bound to be cringe-worthy at best.

This is all true. 8E looks far less painful to play than the fething gakshow that was 6E / 7E. I'm sure 8E will be almost as good as AoS, but I wonder whether it'll be as good as 3E. For that, we'll have to wait and see.

I'm hoping that NuMarines are just the latest edition of plastic SMs that still match the 3E-7E template, but I doubt it. Not that it matters, as I won't be buying any.

Since we knew that new 40k would look a lot more like space AoS than what we've been playing so far (and that I personnaly feel AoS is an atrocious game), I can't say I've ever been overly fond of this coming edition. Nu Marines sounds excedingly silly too, dont really see what they bring over Custodes.

Still, even though I dislike most of the changes so far (loss of vehicles rules, loss of unit types and the loss of templates being the hardest one to digest) the most damning aspects of AoS haven't been adopted, so I won't throw in the towel just yet on 8th ed. I'm just not too optimistic, especially since they are trying to hype themselves up as new GW that listen to what the community wants (yeah, lets just disregard that "new" GW is a major architect of why 7th edition is such an imbalanced mess) instead of manning up and giving us real answers to why they won't fell in the same traps once again (though the yearly revised points cost is definitively a step in the right direction). In other words I'm still listening, but I'm sure not buying anything new before it drops

I'm well aboard the Hype Train

TOOT TOOT!!

No, I'm not.

I certainly agree that the rules look better than they did before for most, but unfortunately it's starting to look like the price of those better rules is that my own army, unless their special rules are absolutely spectacular, is going to be pretty much unplayable.

In short, it currently seems good for the game but bad for me and other Harlie players.

I am, of course, willing to wait for the full rules and the specific army rules before making any final judgements on this.

Super Marines plus the oddities of the Charge phase have been the only bad news so far.

I still remain hopeful because so many of the folks at my local club say that AoS is such fun.

As someone who hasn't played for five years and was just keeping track of GW's progress for comedy value.....I'm honestly interested. I'm going to wait for actual play accounts, but all the rules really need to be is "easy to use" and "not horribly broken".

Yep

Many good points so far

Update for all armies from any one
Better Psychic phase
Charging is fine - the only other option that could work s something like 6+D6, basing it on M stat would mean possible one turn move/charges of 30+" for some units

Reserving judgement till we see stats/rules/points on stuff like Wraith Knight, Scat bikes and Riptides.

For me I'm waiting more info on 30k side thing. For 40k I have better rules to play than the 8th ed so GW's 8th ed will have bigger impact on 30k side for me depending on does FW adopt and will Finland's 30k community switch to it or not if FW switch.

8th ed looks like better than 7th but still inferior to modified 2nd so for 40k it's "meh". And new fluff we ignore anyway. We are already well into 42th millenia so can't incorporate GW's new fluff anyway and the numarines are just boring anyway.

Am I excited? As a whole, yeah, though cautiously so.

I am worried about my Slaanesh Daemons though. They were more middle of the pack before (as I didn't spam Summoning or use the Grimoire), and all the changes revealed so far looks to be weakening them in certain areas. At the same time though I understand we've only seen a snippet of the rules so far, and as such there's likely to be a lot I'm missing that balances this out, or at least lessens the perceived divide.

Hyped for the new ruleset; cautiously pessimistic about them messing about with the setting/background/factions.

Numarines could be Marines with two LP like Sigmarines. As there are Bloodwarriors which have two LP too, we might ask for Chaos Numarines.
The new release is as expected. All core rules have been weighted and changed or not.
The new release is also not as expected since it goes in the direction of AoS which makes me wonder.
Maybe in the next edition they are unifying both systems.

As someone else said, I'm cautiously optimistic. I WAS enthusiastically optimistic until they said random charge is still a thing as is overwatch. Plus, overwatch seems to have gotten stronger. I also think the 1" bubble is going to be a pain in the A to manage at times. That was disappointing, but I'm still looking forward to the game as a whole.

I think making it faster to play is a good thing, and it doesn't seem like they're going to completely gut it like they did going from 2nd to 3rd (which I HATED).

RE: the Numarines - dumb name. Sounds like "NuMetal". My initial thoughts when I heard about them were that GW was finally going to make terminators worth while just in time to release a new unit that makes them irrelevant. After seeing the actual trailer video, I'm guessing new faction. Not sure I'm on board with that yet, but fortunately, adding a faction doesn't really screw up the core rules, and I can still enjoy the game itself even if the new faction ends up being stupid.

Rippy wrote:

Davor wrote:
I wasn't excited before, and I am not less excited now either

There is your answer, no.

The answer is not No. If to answer the question correctly, that would mean the person was excited for new 40K edition before the announcements and after the recent announcements is either still excited or not excited. So after the announcements I am the same. I guess you can say I am interested or more eager than I thought I would be, but I wasn't excited before the announcement and still not excited about it after.

The last two days had me worried for Assault, but today's got me excited again. I am going to work on balancing my models so they can be used in balanced lists. I am really excited for my Blood Angels since I have reasons to run many of the units I used to ignore. My Crimson Fists need a little work. My Tactical Terminators are probably going to come out to play more. I am definitely looking at running Tactical Squads in Rhinos rather than Scouts in Land Speeder Storms now.

I'm disappointed. Assault should be a fixed stat that doesn't change at all, set it per unit and playtest it to get it right. 2d6 for charging is just ridiculous and 40k should remove as many randomized elements of the game as possible outside of combat, morale, and magic.

Yes, I'm still excited. Giddy even.

The game apart from the mega marines sounds good.

The fluff is now dead to me anyway !

Nope.

The psychic rules sound good.

The shooting rules sound effectively more or less the same as what we have now, with the addition of small arms now being able to hurt vehicles and different stats on everything.

The assault rules look like a mess, and sticking with the stupid 'charges can be anything from 2" to 12"' randomness is a huge disappointment.