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.

I cant believe that no one is up in arms about the lack of a force lance option!

WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO MY POWER LANCES!!???!!!

 Talamare wrote:

So instead of making a occasional rare exception, we will instead see EVERYTHING turned into an exception.

Again, my stance is that we needed to cut out half the USRs.

So instead of making a bunch of unit-specific exceptions, you wanted to.... make a bunch of unit-specific exceptions?

Also, don't give me that 'design space' crap, because no it didn't. The USRs existed because they were common. Several units were already seeing the same rules appear over and over again. It was simple logic to simplify by making it consistent.

Consistency only works if every unit in the game can be modeled by the same set of special rules. The closest 40k has come to this was 3rd edition, which was notoriously bland.

If you don't want to hear "design space," then I have to point at Fearless, Stubborn, Zealot, and ATSKNF. All different implementations at making troops more resistant to morale, with a lot of confusing overlap. And yet you still have unit-specific mechanics that make troops more resistant to morale. Why not decide on a unit-by-unit basis how they respond to morale, and cut out the need to reference a different source?

Oh, and technically USRs still exist. Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire still exist. Anyone arguing that USR shouldn't exist is arguing that those keywords shouldn't exist.

Those aren't USRs. A USR is a special rule, kind of by definition.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

So instead of making a occasional rare exception, we will instead see EVERYTHING turned into an exception.

Again, my stance is that we needed to cut out half the USRs.

So instead of making a bunch of unit-specific exceptions, you wanted to.... make a bunch of unit-specific exceptions?

Also, don't give me that 'design space' crap, because no it didn't. The USRs existed because they were common. Several units were already seeing the same rules appear over and over again. It was simple logic to simplify by making it consistent.

Consistency only works if every unit in the game can be modeled by the same set of special rules. The closest 40k has come to this was 3rd edition, which was notoriously bland.

If you don't want to hear "design space," then I have to point at Fearless, Stubborn, Zealot, and ATSKNF. All different implementations at making troops more resistant to morale, with a lot of confusing overlap. And yet you still have unit-specific mechanics that make troops more resistant to morale. Why not decide on a unit-by-unit basis how they respond to morale, and cut out the need to reference a different source?

Oh, and technically USRs still exist. Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire still exist. Anyone arguing that USR shouldn't exist is arguing that those keywords shouldn't exist.

Those aren't USRs. A USR is a special rule, kind of by definition.

No, the point of USR is that there will be a generalized rule for the majority of units and a FEW units with a specific exception.

Fearless just needs to be removed, and ATSKNF is probably still around. Zealot would be fine if it was no longer a USR since only a few very specific units even had Zealot.
Again, my stance is that a majority of USRs did NOT need to be USR. My Stance is removing the idea of USR is stupid.

Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire ARE USRs.
They are RULES. That are UNIVERSAL...
You would have been more accurate to argue the "Special" part instead.

I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

 Boniface wrote:
I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

It says damage "characteristic" of 1. A lascannon has a damage characteristic of d6, no matter what it rolls for damage, so they don't get the +1 against it, ever.

 Boniface wrote:
I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

Damage is d6, not 1. Even if you roll a 1 for your d6 it still negates the +1 bonus. No debate.

 Boniface wrote:
I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

It has to have a damage characteristic of 1, meaning it only ever deals 1 damage. Not just against something that deals one damage but could potentially deal more.

 Boniface wrote:
I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

Others have already answered but here's very good reason why it is so.

You roll to hit. You roll to wound. You roll to save. Fail. Opponent rolls 1 for damage. Now what? Timeleap back? You would have to roll separately all saves that failed by 1 to see if that is saved after all after the fact...

Would be pretty clumsy system to say the least!

NVM, ninja*d by tneva82

Cool. Glad it's that straightforward.

Earth127 wrote:
Power is narrative points.

Matched points aren't on the datasheet apparently, maybe in a separate list in the codex?

Hopefully, having the point costs by everything adds to the visual clutter. If all the points for everything is concise and in one spot you can add things up quickly without having to flip a bunch of pages.

 Talamare wrote:

No, the point of USR is that there will be a generalized rule for the majority of units and a FEW units with a specific exception.

Which works when there are only a few exceptions. But almost every unit in the game has its own special rules in addition to any USRs they might have- and some of those specific rules are just tweaked USRs. Which means any time there's a disagreement about what a rule does, you have multiple places you might need to look to resolve the issue.

Just because you remember what a rule does doesn't mean your opponent does, or that you're correct in every instance. Putting all the rules on the datasheet lets them be more flexible with what units can do what without adding cruft to the core rule set, and lets rules disputes resolve faster.

Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire ARE USRs.
They are RULES. That are UNIVERSAL...
You would have been more accurate to argue the "Special" part instead.

A USR is a special rule, kind of by definition.

Next are you gonna tell me that charging into assault is a USR, because it's a Universal Rule?

 Talamare wrote:
Universal Special Rules are gone?

Now... I 100% agree that the game did NOT need 2/3rds of the Universal Special Rules.

but removing ALL of them seems excessive.

There is a point where it's streamlining... and a point where its dumbing down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Why bother making the Psykers smite so damn long and pointless...

Wouldn't it have been WAY EASIER AND SIMPLER to create a new power called ... MINOR SMITE...

and then just say
Aspiring Psyker has MINOR SMITE

because I don't doubt that there will be other Psykers around with this Minor Smite.

Some of us like having the rules included in the unit profile. It speeds up play, reduces confusion on which "book" is "Right".....
I've played back since 3rd ed, this is a similar direction to AoS and AoS is WAAAAAYYYY easier to get playing on and has way less rule conflicts now that the generals handbook is out.

Rules should be to the point and direct, not in 8 books and impossible to understand.

I think everybody's missing the big point of narrative play and the lists. Let's say I bring my Army to the store for a pickup game. Currently I'll have to bring you for 5 list based upon whatever I'm going to be fighting. If I'm playing against Tau I'll have one list if I'm playing against Space Marines I have another list against IG have another list.

When I go to play I can just bring the Miniatures and one list and tweak my load out when I know what my opponent is playing so it's okay. I don't have to rebalance all my costs down to the wargear. It's flexible and helps prevent bad matchups.

 Talamare wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

So instead of making a occasional rare exception, we will instead see EVERYTHING turned into an exception.

Again, my stance is that we needed to cut out half the USRs.

So instead of making a bunch of unit-specific exceptions, you wanted to.... make a bunch of unit-specific exceptions?

Also, don't give me that 'design space' crap, because no it didn't. The USRs existed because they were common. Several units were already seeing the same rules appear over and over again. It was simple logic to simplify by making it consistent.

Consistency only works if every unit in the game can be modeled by the same set of special rules. The closest 40k has come to this was 3rd edition, which was notoriously bland.

If you don't want to hear "design space," then I have to point at Fearless, Stubborn, Zealot, and ATSKNF. All different implementations at making troops more resistant to morale, with a lot of confusing overlap. And yet you still have unit-specific mechanics that make troops more resistant to morale. Why not decide on a unit-by-unit basis how they respond to morale, and cut out the need to reference a different source?

Oh, and technically USRs still exist. Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire still exist. Anyone arguing that USR shouldn't exist is arguing that those keywords shouldn't exist.

Those aren't USRs. A USR is a special rule, kind of by definition.

No, the point of USR is that there will be a generalized rule for the majority of units and a FEW units with a specific exception.

Fearless just needs to be removed, and ATSKNF is probably still around. Zealot would be fine if it was no longer a USR since only a few very specific units even had Zealot.
Again, my stance is that a majority of USRs did NOT need to be USR. My Stance is removing the idea of USR is stupid.

Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire ARE USRs.
They are RULES. That are UNIVERSAL...
You would have been more accurate to argue the "Special" part instead.

The issue with all but the most basic universal "special" rules is that it makes updating things more difficult as any change to those rules effects a ton of units. Which means points costs on older units are never accurate because they were designed with a different rule in mind.

 Gloomfang wrote:
I think everybody's missing the big point of narrative play and the lists. Let's say I bring my Army to the store for a pickup game. Currently I'll have to bring you for 5 list based upon whatever I'm going to be fighting. If I'm playing against Tau I'll have one list if I'm playing against Space Marines I have another list against IG have another list.

When I go to play I can just bring the Miniatures and one list and tweak my load out when I know what my opponent is playing so it's okay. I don't have to rebalance all my costs down to the wargear. It's flexible and helps prevent bad matchups.

I am secretly hoping for "takes all comers" making a return, but will settle for "Army does what it does OK, regardless of opponent."

The absence of that, and the need to customize an army based on an opponent, is what drove me away from 40K. It seemed like there were 3 categories: armies that did their thing, armies that tried to handle the armies that did their thing and rubbish armies.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
It is the first thing I do not like from all shown so far. In AoS you can buy a box and play because unit's warscroll has all info you need. Here we are told that some datasheets will not have stats for all weapons or rules. So basically you still need a codex even if you do not play with points.

Not entirely. I'm guessing it's about how you equip things. I'm guessing a tactical squad built with missile launcher and flamer will definitely be covered by the included rules but maybe not every other weapon. So you can play out of the box without a codex, but if you want all the options, then you'll have to pay.

40k has gone freemium.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with all but the most basic universal "special" rules is that it makes updating things more difficult as any change to those rules effects a ton of units. Which means points costs on older units are never accurate because they were designed with a different rule in mind.

Problem with unit specific rules is that one unit get changed and other unit with same stuff suddenly can get left behind. Dark angels say @hi@

That is still true with USR rules. But your assumption is based on keeping those same units with different rules.

I.e. if tactical squads just have a single set of rules, then they all update at the same time.

Further if those units are costed differently it doesn't matter if they end up with different rules.

But the issue with DA was always wargear, if all imperial wargear is based in the same rulebook it all updates at once.

Essentially because units can be costed based on their own rules, it is better if one of those units is left behind, but still appropriately costed, rather than units getting huge buffs or nerfs with no change in cost.

The problem with DA is that they were poorly costed for worse gear, because the edition changed around them.

Has anyone noticed the massive reduction in wargear options, including, but not limited to, the complete absence of grenades on the war scroll?

 Traditio wrote:
Has anyone reduced the massive reduction in wargear options, including, but not limited to, the complete absence of grenades on the war scroll?

I'm very glad to not see any grenades here. Used to be that grenades had to be purchased, and they just made it so you struck simultaneously during close combat if you charged through terrain (and even then, I think only if your Initiative would normally be the same or higher). Now they let you go in normal order, but EVERYONE has them (except Tyranids, of course), and they have them for free! Means that, outside of some dudes that suffer horrendously for not having them, the rule was pointless. If they want charging into terrain causing attackers to strike last to be important, the first step is reducing the number of units with access to things that let them bypass that rule.

 Yarium wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Has anyone reduced the massive reduction in wargear options, including, but not limited to, the complete absence of grenades on the war scroll?

I'm very glad to not see any grenades here. Used to be that grenades had to be purchased, and they just made it so you struck simultaneously during close combat if you charged through terrain (and even then, I think only if your Initiative would normally be the same or higher). Now they let you go in normal order, but EVERYONE has them (except Tyranids, of course), and they have them for free! Means that, outside of some dudes that suffer horrendously for not having them, the rule was pointless. If they want charging into terrain causing attackers to strike last to be important, the first step is reducing the number of units with access to things that let them bypass that rule.

I'm not necessarily saying it's good or bad.

Thousand Sons used to have frag and krak grenades.

Now they don't even have an upgrade option to get them.

The aspiring sorcerer used to be able to take melta-bombs.

That option is gone.

It's looking like there's going to be a lot less special war gear in 8th edition.

 Traditio wrote:
Has anyone reduced the massive reduction in wargear options, including, but not limited to, the complete absence of grenades on the war scroll?

I don't even know what this sentence means. Is there a typo? Wait... is the first reduced supposed to be noticed? If so then: It's been brought up. It's also been countered with Rubric Marines never had grenades.

docdoom77 wrote: don't even know what this sentence means. Is there a typo? Wait... is the first reduced supposed to be noticed?

Typo on my part. It was, in fact, supposed to be noticed.

If so then: It's been brought up. It's also been countered with Rubric Marines never had grenades.

I don't know about the t-sons themselves, but the aspiring sorcerer did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One further point:

Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

 Traditio wrote:
Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

I don't think dedicated transports work like that any longer. When you look at the detachments they're putting out, there's specific slots for "dedicated transports". I think that means they'll just be their own stand-alone unit entry.

 Traditio wrote:
Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

Would it need to? Dedicated transports are their own unit type now and the detachments we've seen so far allow you to take one dedicated transport for each other unit you take. Seems like it wouldn't need to go on the sheet if this is the case. In fact, this seems to be a slight confirmation that dedicated transports may no longer be assigned to specific units anymore. But we can't read in to it too much yet.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

Would it need to? Dedicated transports are their own unit type now and the detachments we've seen so far allow you to take one dedicated transport for each other unit you take. Seems like it wouldn't need to go on the sheet if this is the case. In fact, this seems to be a slight confirmation that dedicated transports may no longer be assigned to specific units anymore. But we can't read in to it too much yet.

Here's the reason why this is interesting:

Landraiders.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

Would it need to? Dedicated transports are their own unit type now and the detachments we've seen so far allow you to take one dedicated transport for each other unit you take. Seems like it wouldn't need to go on the sheet if this is the case. In fact, this seems to be a slight confirmation that dedicated transports may no longer be assigned to specific units anymore. But we can't read in to it too much yet.

That would mean you can get dedicated transport for including land raider as well unless there\s some rule somewhere that prevents but what_ Dedicated can be taken for infantry units only_ Ok solves that but that means every unit without exception qualifies. Is there much units who couldnt take dedicated transport at all in 7th ed_

 Traditio wrote:
Here's the reason why this is interesting:

Landraiders.

Admittedly, I hadn't considered that. However, it's hard to say. If anything, the Land Raider having to be a dedicated transport weakens it. It's likely to be so many points that you can't jam your list with them anyways, and having to take a unit to take a dedicated transport like a Land Raider could, in some ways, be considered a tax. Plus, by being dedicated, it is required to carry the squad that it's dedicated for at the start of the game, or else not carry anything at the start at all. My main point is; not enough info yet to make any reasonable determination.

I'm also wondering how this will work with assault marines.

Assault marines currently have the option to take a rhino or razorback instead of jump packs.