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.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
complaining about rules that arent even out yet is pathetic.

Complaining about people complaining about rules that aren't even out yet is pathetic.

But really, some rules you can easily complain about because their effect is pretty clear (like the 2D6 charge range or battleshock), things like army balance (assault vs shooty) is hard to complain about because it depends how the armies themselves are constructed which we don't know yet.

 Soccerlfb6 wrote:
The OP is not speculation i stated the rules we know exist and discussed what i feel is a weakness in the game.

I will never understand why this community does nothing but bash and troll posts....

Who cares if it is specualtion i posted on the discussion to talk about it....if you dont like what you read or dont want to put something real into s discussion...move on..

Stop being "that guy", just because you dont get players wanting to play with you in RL...you dont need to come here on forums and still be "that guy".

MOD go ahead and lock or close post. You cant talk abput anything without people complaining about your post or crying that your crying....its honestly pathetic.

Honestly - the OP is more of a troll post than any response in this thread. There are numerous threads that already exist complaining about the exact same issue with the exact same lack of information making the exact same points. Then you double down on it by calling people trolls and TFG. You don't need to be "that guy" by coming on forums to complain because players don't want to hear your misinformed complaints IRL because they see you as "that guy." See how it works both ways?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
complaining about rules that arent even out yet is pathetic.

Complaining about people complaining about rules that aren't even out yet is pathetic.

But really, some rules you can easily complain about because their effect is pretty clear (like the 2D6 charge range or battleshock), things like army balance (assault vs shooty) is hard to complain about because it depends how the armies themselves are constructed which we don't know yet.

Not really. Battleshock may be moot, because if it works like it does in AoS, a lot of generals have a Command ability that gives a unit the ability to ignore Battleshock tests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soccerlfb6 wrote:
The OP is not speculation i stated the rules we know exist and discussed what i feel is a weakness in the game.

I will never understand why this community does nothing but bash and troll posts....

Who cares if it is specualtion i posted on the discussion to talk about it....if you dont like what you read or dont want to put something real into s discussion...move on..

Stop being "that guy", just because you dont get players wanting to play with you in RL...you dont need to come here on forums and still be "that guy".

MOD go ahead and lock or close post. You cant talk abput anything without people complaining about your post or crying that your crying....its honestly pathetic.

It's not speculation, it's fearmongering when your title is "40k and officially killing assaulty arnies". And people are discussing, they're saying "Hey, wait until we have the whole picture. Your fears might not be justified"

 jreilly89 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
complaining about rules that arent even out yet is pathetic.

Complaining about people complaining about rules that aren't even out yet is pathetic.

But really, some rules you can easily complain about because their effect is pretty clear (like the 2D6 charge range or battleshock), things like army balance (assault vs shooty) is hard to complain about because it depends how the armies themselves are constructed which we don't know yet.

Not really. Battleshock may be mute, because if it works like it does in AoS, a lot of generals have a Command ability that gives a unit the ability to ignore Battleshock tests.

I don't like the idea of battleshock regardless of whether it results in removing a lot of models or not removing any models if everyone has an ability to negate it.

IMO it's simply a poor idea for a morale system... we can argue if it's worse than 40k's existing system but I think the existing system is pretty much junk as well. So we're replacing one junk system with another junk system.

 Soccerlfb6 wrote:
The OP is not speculation i stated the rules we know exist and discussed what i feel is a weakness in the game.

I will never understand why this community does nothing but bash and troll posts....

Who cares if it is specualtion i posted on the discussion to talk about it....if you dont like what you read or dont want to put something real into s discussion...move on..

Stop being "that guy", just because you dont get players wanting to play with you in RL...you dont need to come here on forums and still be "that guy".

MOD go ahead and lock or close post. You cant talk abput anything without people complaining about your post or crying that your crying....its honestly pathetic.

It's really funny, actually. You're claiming that gunlines are going to be the only list, but I'm sitting here wondering if my gunline is still going to actually be worthwhile in light of the rules teased so far, I don't think I'm going to be able to stop aggressive melee units from reaching my lines when it hits. My back's already to the wall, so I can't retreat. I'll have to make sure there's a bunch of small guard units scattered in a screen for my gun batteries.

I'm definitely going to have to break up my squads from big blobs to small squads. Falling back out of melee is nice, if there's anything left of the squad after shooting casualties, assault casualties, and battleshock. And of course, with assaulting out of transport, getting to strike first for charging, and it looking like the only penalty for multicharge is multioverwatch, a big line of Repentia and Vigilators is sound really fun right now.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
complaining about rules that arent even out yet is pathetic.

Complaining about people complaining about rules that aren't even out yet is pathetic.

But really, some rules you can easily complain about because their effect is pretty clear (like the 2D6 charge range or battleshock), things like army balance (assault vs shooty) is hard to complain about because it depends how the armies themselves are constructed which we don't know yet.

Not really. Battleshock may be mute, because if it works like it does in AoS, a lot of generals have a Command ability that gives a unit the ability to ignore Battleshock tests.

I don't like the idea of battleshock regardless of whether it results in removing a lot of models or not removing any models if everyone has an ability to negate it.

IMO it's simply a poor idea for a morale system... we can argue if it's worse than 40k's existing system but I think the existing system is pretty much junk as well. So we're replacing one junk system with another junk system.

So what would you have? I like Battleshock, I think it's a quick replacement for the existing Leadership system.

For those of us who watched the livestream the lead designer actually said "we are going to make assault armies just as viable as shooting armies" I will assume there will be mechanics in place to ensure that, and if the amount of playtesting they have going on is true they should have hammered it out

1) Too many Rule #1 violations here

2) Too early to get this worked up about something we don't have all the information on

Thread locked.