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.

Grimgold wrote:If Necron Deathmarks are anything like they are in 7th ed they just became the game over IC assassins.

Not necessarily. It depends too much on how Deep Strike operates. I heard one rumor that it was more like a mid-game Infiltrate than what we have now. In other words, you place the unit on the table without deviation, but outside of a distance from any enemy unit. Deathmarks would carry no more advantage here than Stealth Suits or a Stern Pod squad.

Pancakey wrote:
It is clear that doing 10 wounds in the new shooting phase is going to be easy so they threw a patch on the rules to save all 10 wound characters from dying to shooting on turn 1.

Pancakey, literally all you do is post hyperbolic statements about the overpowered nature of shooting in 8th as if it is exponentially more viable than it was in 7th. Do you ever get tired of this?

With each roll out its clear that 8th edition is going to exceptionally clunky.

I was no fan of the 23,493 formations with cheese sauce in 7th, but 8th just seems like all the changes are being "fixed" with new rules like this "cannot target IC if less than 11 wounds and not closest unless you are a snipers etc etc etc. ". CLUNKY AS HELL!

Pancakey wrote:
With each roll out its clear that 8th edition is going to exceptionally clunky.

I was no fan of the 23,493 formations with cheese sauce in 7th, but 8th just seems like all the changes are being "fixed" with new rules like this "cannot target IC if less than 11 wounds and not closest unless you are a snipers etc etc etc. ". CLUNKY AS HELL!

It is objectively much, much less clunky than 7th. 3rd-7th were the reign of self-contradictory USR's, exceptions and bloat as the norm. To say that 8th is more complex and clunky is just patently false.

 EnTyme wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Not at all a fan of untargetable characters. If anyone remembers older editions where this rule was in effect, they will remember some of the more absurd gimmickry and abuse this opened up.

The rest I'm fine with, but the untargetable characters is absolutely going to develop into an issue.

The IG write-up mentions sniper weapons being able to target characters regardless of closest model. Get ready to break out those Ratlings!

my rangers, scout snipers, and ratlings are all going to throw a party at Illic's house

but seriously Illic just got a power boost along with 9to a lesser extent) telion

Vindicares just got a LOT more useful, I'm guessing.

 Charistoph wrote:

Grimgold wrote:If Necron Deathmarks are anything like they are in 7th ed they just became the game over IC assassins.

Not necessarily. It depends too much on how Deep Strike operates. I heard one rumor that it was more like a mid-game Infiltrate than what we have now. In other words, you place the unit on the table without deviation, but outside of a distance from any enemy unit. Deathmarks would carry no more advantage here than Stealth Suits or a Stern Pod squad.

Other than wounding on 2s in the round they land and having rapid fire sniper rifles. 10 of them would be a nearly guaranteed kill on any 5 wound ICs, (2/3 * 2/3 * 1/3) + (2/3 * 1/6 * 5/6), 4 shots to a wound, 20 shots, most likely outcome, death. Sternguard and stealth suits may come close but it's going to cost a lot more points to get there, at least at going 7th ed rates, and neither of those units seems like they are due for points reduction.

 Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
With each roll out its clear that 8th edition is going to exceptionally clunky.

I was no fan of the 23,493 formations with cheese sauce in 7th, but 8th just seems like all the changes are being "fixed" with new rules like this "cannot target IC if less than 11 wounds and not closest unless you are a snipers etc etc etc. ". CLUNKY AS HELL!

It is objectively much, much less clunky than 7th. 3rd-7th were the reign of self-contradictory USR's, exceptions and bloat as the norm. To say that 8th is more complex and clunky is just patently false.

I would say that it is not internally more complex and clunky, but we have zero idea on how the new army list entries are going to be set up, so the external complexity and clunkiness are still unknowns.

I would imagine them to be no more complex and clunky than AoS has been, i.e. relying on one or two unit special rules at most to differentiate the units from each other, but GW has gone against their own curve before.

I wonder what happens to all those units/character that buff things like 'auto look out sir', 'no deepstrike scatter'.

Maybe they get a variant like 1 unit may deepstrike within 6" without scatter or something.

Makes my ethereal somewhat happy. Although just saying that makes me immediate fear the 'Tau are OP' repercussions as it doesn't hugely affect Tau save the Buffmander who really needed to go the way of the Dodo anyway.

 KingGarland wrote:

tneva82 wrote:Wonder what keyword chimera would have. Am only doesn't cut it

Probbably Imperial.

I suspect they'll list them separately in each army's roster of units. The Inquisition list will have an "Inquisitorial Chimera" that can carry a fixed number of models with the "Inquisition" keyword, Adeptus Militarum will have a similarly restricted Chimera of their own, etc. I could see some characters might work the same way, like if they gave the Priest the Inquisition, Adeptus Militarum, and Adepta Sororitas keywords so he could board the transports of those armies, or maybe he just appears on each of those army rosters with a different keyword. A Priest you bought for your AM couldn't ride with an Inquisition unit bought as part of a different detachment, but could ride in an AM Chimera, etc.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Good.

From Facebook:

If you want something "tanky" in Warhammer 40,000, you should put your units in a tank.

No more independent characters magically intercepting an entire armies shooting on their tiny stormshield.

Different topic but whateva.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
With each roll out its clear that 8th edition is going to exceptionally clunky.

I was no fan of the 23,493 formations with cheese sauce in 7th, but 8th just seems like all the changes are being "fixed" with new rules like this "cannot target IC if less than 11 wounds and not closest unless you are a snipers etc etc etc. ". CLUNKY AS HELL!

It is objectively much, much less clunky than 7th. 3rd-7th were the reign of self-contradictory USR's, exceptions and bloat as the norm. To say that 8th is more complex and clunky is just patently false.

I would say that it is not internally more complex and clunky, but we have zero idea on how the new army list entries are going to be set up, so the external complexity and clunkiness are still unknowns.

I would imagine them to be no more complex and clunky than AoS has been, i.e. relying on one or two unit special rules at most to differentiate the units from each other, but GW has gone against their own curve before.

I'm on board with the latter two opinions, and I'm willing to bet that gameplay is significantly streamlined compared to 7th (or the preceding editions), as well. I'm very hesitant to forman opinion of the game yet since we obviously don't know how everything will come together once the complete rules are released, but I've liked all the changes I've seen so far to some degree. I remain hopeful that the game will kick serious bootay.

 KingGarland wrote:

tneva82 wrote:Wonder what keyword chimera would have. Am only doesn't cut it

Probbably Imperial.

Fail. That would allow space marines to ride in which is obviously not intended.

Multiple keywords for transport rule is probably what will happen. That or every faction will have their own chimera rules which would be horrible...

 oldzoggy wrote:
Nope, they no longer have T4 as by majority Toughness rule. So YaY or T6 warbosses on bike actually using T6 : D

Happening at the same time as S4 weapons against T6 goes from a 6+ to a 5+

SSssst don't tell my bikewarboss that.

Everyone is a nid player now dealing with synapse like abilities. Great... sounds like, a lot of fun...

Pancakey wrote:
With each roll out its clear that 8th edition is going to exceptionally clunky.

Hmm nope, seems more straightforward and fluid than ever.

 Viridian wrote:
Everyone is a nid player now dealing with synapse like abilities. Great... sounds like, a lot of fun...

Jup,whats not to like : )

 Viridian wrote:
Everyone is a nid player now dealing with synapse like abilities. Great... sounds like, a lot of fun...

except they have to be in range for a bonus, those guardsman might not be stubborn with the commassar gone but aty least they will not immediately start eating eachother. and space marines without the presence of a primarch are not suddenly running for cover and just keep fighting

My biggest fear is Guilliman being anything remotely like current Guilliman. The ability to hide behind units that conveniently Magnus doesn't have (lets hope flight is similar, it could just be like AoS flight rules) makes him scary.

Gives me the heebie jeebies I tell ya. On another note, Shaper special character? Are the days of pure kroot army finally here?

Anyone want to bet based off the AoS profile and 40k profile/weapons. The Great Unclean One looks like:



Excuse the stupid typo.

Probably at least 1 wound more to prevent hiding.

Well, it does have 10 wounds in AoS. So, I would guess it would remain the same in 40k.

Hidy time GUO?

Hey, you know he could be hiding amongst some cultists. Just sneaking along wearing an old trench coat and hat!

I would actually bet that Greater Daemons all have 11+ wounds, while Daemon Princes will have 7-9.

Youn wrote:
Well, it does have 10 wounds in AoS. So, I would guess it would remain the same in 40k.

There's no killer cut point of 11 wounds that's as huge as it is in 40k.

Of course Q is do they want to have GUO hiding behind cultists or not. But I'm on camp of expecting them to not be hideable so he will break the 10 wound limit into "oh crap every lascannon is aiming me" area.

This means a cryptek doesn't need to join a unit. You just have him hover in the middle of your necron blobs to give the boost to reanimation protocols.

Good change.

Your probably right in that they will push it up into the 11+ range. Looking though the warscrolls the Daemon Princes are 8 wounds.

Which would allow one to hide in a crowd. Assuming MONSTER doesn't automatically make it targetable.

Youn wrote:
Your probably right in that they will push it up into the 11+ range. Looking though the warscrolls the Daemon Princes are 8 wounds.

Which would allow one to hide in a crowd. Assuming MONSTER doesn't automatically make it targetable.

They have already used Guilliman as an example of someone who would not be targetable, and his a monstrous creature. So my money would be that a non-flying daemon prince would not be targetable. That's a good change though, these guys are pretty easy to blow out of the water without power armor. And you can't take power armor in a grav meta.