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.

 Tamereth wrote:

1st Time perfection?, this is of course the 8th iteration of the game.

Not really, there are only a few games from GW that got more than a first edition

fact is, this this is the first Edition of New40k and now the 6th SciFi Mass-Skirmish game in the grim darkness from GW.

Would be nice if they would stop making new games and just stick with one and improve it over time
but I don't believe so and after second edition of New40k we will see another new grim dark game with another first edition of rules

GW have already said the faction keywords and regular keywords have no difference after the game has started.
So the Changling does buff Magnus because they are both Tzeentch Daemons.

People are just trying to be difficult and twist this when GW has already clarified it.

I know and this is were the problem is with Daemons and ObSec.

Because now for ObSec they would need to have Faction Keyword of Tzeentch-Daemon that is different to Tzeetch Faction + Daemon Keyword.
Solution is, either reverse it and say Faction and Keyword are two different things, or Daemons have no ObSec until the Codex add a "Clut/Coven/Warpstorm" Sub-Faction a player can chose.

40k:
Rogue Trader 1987
Second edition 1993 (6 years)
Third edition 1998 (5 years)
Fourth edition 2004 (6 years)
Fifth edition 2008 (4 years)
Sixth edition 2012 (4 years)
Seventh edition 2014 (2 years)
Eighth edition 2017 (3 years)

Warmachine:
Mk 1 2003
Mk 2 2010 (7 years)
Mk 3 2016 (6 years)

Malifaux:
1st edition 2009
2nd edition 2013 (4 years)

Flames of War:
1st edition 2002
2nd edition 2006 (4 years)
3rd edition 2012 (6 years)
4th edition 2017 (5 years)

Infinity:
1st edition 2005
2nd edition 2012 (7 years)
3rd edition 2014 (2 years)

40k moved n to its 2nd edition faster than Warmachine and Infinity, but not as quickly as Malifaux or Flames of War. It moved onto a 3rd edition slower than Infinity or Flames of War.

Arachnofiend wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Nova and ITC are claiming Daemons have no faction.

Chaos and Allegiance don't count, apparently.

Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.

It sounds like Daemons need an exception to the rule. I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.

No, no, don't be confused. Forgeworld FAQs literally call <Allegiance> faction keywords.

They're just stating they don't count.

Because reasons.

It's different because if <Allegiance> counts then so does <Imperium>, which is obviously not the intention based on Despoilers of the Galaxy and... whatever the SM rule was called. GW did a pretty poor job at writing a pretty well-intended rule, unfortunately.

<Allegiance> isn't a thing currently in the chaos index, that could change. Even if it did, it would not be the same as <imperium> which does not exist, as CSM don't have <Allegiance> they have <Mark of Chaos>. So it would only apply to detachments of daemons from the same god.

The rule is pretty clear as of now that it refers to bracketed keywords.

Right now this is an issue for Daemons, GSC, and Custodes as they don't have <faction> keywords available.

 AduroT wrote:

Where is this at in the Space Marine Codex by the way? I apparently missed it or glossed over it.

Can´t say where but it´s called Defenders of Humanity


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Malifice wrote:

Im liking Intercessors for my army even more. 10 man MEQ units (2 wounds a pop) with Obsec (and rapid fire guns at S4, -1 and 30" range) make them pretty hardy objective campers. Add in a 2+ save for cover, and you're going to be mighty hard to dig out.

Intercessors might be the Primaris version that is as close to an upgrade for a normal space marine unit (tactical marines) as possible, up to now.
But for my taste that second wound is too pricey and the uprated gun can´t help it justify the points.
15 normal marines bear simply more firepower especially against hordes and 3 troops are more flexible than 2. And for extra costs normal marines can get some gear.
Vs. certain weapons (autocannons, oc plasma) primaris die as easy as normal marines.
18 points per intercessor seems more fitting to me.

I cannot agree at all with this change to who goes first.

Yeah, it's probably directed against some specific style list, such as super heavy detachment. Better nerf would have been that the Super Heavy Detachment gives no CPs. I dont see any reason why it should give 3 CPs.
Transports currently provide both cover and drop minimization and some of the prices look like as if the drop minimization is calculated into the price. The drop minimization becomes nearly pointless with this change.
I was just today planning a list centered around kind alpha strike list with Storm Eagle providing efficient drop minimization to guarantee 1st turn in most cases (6 drops).

Now drop minimization is almost pointless and I just need to scrap my list idea and start anew. Yeah, can be argued that having +1 to roll and being able re-roll once gives me slight edge, but the mechanism is still so random. The chances to don't mean anything. My Storm Eagle list is extremely weak if it happened to face list which spammed lascannons or similar weapons and had re-rolls and then the spammy list wins first turn, he will just shoot Storm Eagle down, it cannot really be hidden. Additionally spammy lists already have an advantage because they can be dropping cheap spammy troops while I set up my whole army. This allows enemy to set up the good counters last to gets maximum effective fire if they happen to win the roll.
So in short, no Storm Eagle for me like this, have to scrap that list idea.

As constructive suggestion:
Who goes first should be something like every 2 difference gives +1 to the one having less drops. It is kind of refreshing mechanic that one can plan a list that has high chance of going first. The game should NOT increase amount of rolls to increase randomness if we are looking to make

The other fact that all horde troops get Objective Secured is just crazy and encourages for example CSM players to spam cultists (except cultists are nowhere near as good as conscripts or boys) and berserkers or maybe noise marines. Berserkers and Noise Marines as they have somewhat realistic chances of cleaning conscripts/boys/similar off the table in melee, assuming they make it there.
Cleaning orc boys or conscripts with shooting is insanely hard, and if you make a list that can shoot them off then you just lose to first list that spams high T and high Sv vehicles.

This isn't the 8th edition of the same game, and not every edition is made just to fix things.

This is like league of legends where every season they change things just to shake the meta. Why they do that? To keep things fresh. And in the process they broke different things.

No company want to make a game, polish it as best as they can, and they don't touch it anymore. Thats the formula of the past, guys. Videogames have already learned that leson. Continue development and DLC is the way for the future.

 Galas wrote:
This isn't the 8th edition of the same game, and not every edition is made just to fix things.

This is like league of legends where every season they change things just to shake the meta. Why they do that? To keep things fresh.

No company want to make a game, polish it as been as they can, and they don't touch it anymore. Thats the formula of the past, guys. Videogames have already learned that leason. Continue development and DLC is the way for the future.

I could see this happening, it will be awesome for the sales too! Change the mechanics and meta once every 2 months! Just imagine how much money GW can make by doing that.

Ghorgul wrote:
Yeah, it's probably directed against some specific style list, such as super heavy detachment.

It's trivially easy to get down to 2-5 drops with Transports.

A conservative suggestion would be:

roll a dice, the winner chose if he wants to go first or chose table side
the one who goes second places the first marker
the one who goes first deploy all his units, than the other player deploy all his units

no seize initiative or anything


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghorgul wrote:
I could see this happening, it will be awesome for the sales too! Change the mechanics and meta once every 2 months! Just imagine how much money GW can make by doing that.

they already doing that

Ghorgul wrote:

 Galas wrote:
This isn't the 8th edition of the same game, and not every edition is made just to fix things.

This is like league of legends where every season they change things just to shake the meta. Why they do that? To keep things fresh.

No company want to make a game, polish it as been as they can, and they don't touch it anymore. Thats the formula of the past, guys. Videogames have already learned that leason. Continue development and DLC is the way for the future.

I could see this happening, it will be awesome for the sales too! Change the mechanics and meta once every 2 months! Just imagine how much money GW can make by doing that.

Not every two months. But once a year? Well. What you think Chapter Approved is for? A flexible yearly meta is good for us and good for GW. They sell a bigger variety of models because a bigger variety of them are viable and you don't have models being OP a full edition (So like 2-5 years). For us is better because it means a better balanced game, and at least a fresh gaming enviroment.

 pretre wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
Yeah, it's probably directed against some specific style list, such as super heavy detachment.

It's trivially easy to get down to 2-5 drops with Transports.

Which I find to be ok, as many of them are relatively expensive while they don't provide much firepower at all.

I don't understand the point of rolling off for first turn, then immediately after rolling to seize the initiative. You already just rolled of, and you add another roll, which makes finishing deployment first even less of an advantage. The odds of getting to go first aren't that much better for the person who finished deploying first. And they had the disadvantage that the other player deploying a bunch of stuff after knowing where his opponent's entire army is.

Rolling for turn and then allowing for seizing slightly reduces the odds that the winner of the roll will go first from what's basically a 50% chance, but still keeps the roll opposed.

The seizing roll is also optional (or at least used to be) so you could voluntarily go second if (for some strange reason) you wanted to. A reason I can think of is so that you have last turn for a last minute objective scramble.

I really hope they also disallow using a command point to reroll the seize roll.

With no seize, a +1 to go first gives the one to finish setting up first a 67.74% chance to go first.
With a seize, that drops to 56.45%
If the player seizing can reroll with a command point, that drops to 47.04%, meaning the player with the +1 for setting up first actually has a worse chance of going first than the player who tries to seize.

You forgot to add in the chance of the +1 player seizing after losing the initial roll. That makes it about a 56.5% chance of going first with fewer drops,assuming going first is important enough to spend CP on.

 dan2026 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.

No, TS+Daemons won't get ObSec (if done right) because TS are Faction: Tzeentch, while Daemons would be Faction: Tzeentch-Daemons (if you go that way, the Changling/Heralds won't buff Magnus or CSM Princes either because they just count for Faction Tzeentch-Daemons and not Faction Tzeentch with the Keyword Daemon)

GW have already said the faction keywords and regular keywords have no difference after the game has started.
So the Changling does buff Magnus because they are both Tzeentch Daemons.

People are just trying to be difficult and twist this when GW has already clarified it.

So I tried to raise this in the Rules forum and it ended up also being argued a bit in the Tournament forum. Apparently, because GW used <> in the box blurb we're all supposed to know they ALSO meant it only applies to Faction Keywords that have <> around them in the Indices and Codices. At least, this is what the people who actually have some contact (and playtester status) with GW were saying.

No it didn't make sense to me either. I think this will need a FAQ to be honest.

Sadly, I'm partially an outside observer on this. One of my favorite armies is Custodes so we can never have a common faction keyword beyond "Imperium" because we don't have a HQ. I'm glad to see GW at least trying though. They just need to be more careful in how they write rules.

Ghorgul wrote:
I cannot agree at all with this change to who goes first.

Yeah, it's probably directed against some specific style list, such as super heavy detachment. Better nerf would have been that the Super Heavy Detachment gives no CPs. I dont see any reason why it should give 3 CPs.
Transports currently provide both cover and drop minimization and some of the prices look like as if the drop minimization is calculated into the price. The drop minimization becomes nearly pointless with this change.
I was just today planning a list centered around kind alpha strike list with Storm Eagle providing efficient drop minimization to guarantee 1st turn in most cases (6 drops).

Now drop minimization is almost pointless and I just need to scrap my list idea and start anew. Yeah, can be argued that having +1 to roll and being able re-roll once gives me slight edge, but the mechanism is still so random. The chances to don't mean anything. My Storm Eagle list is extremely weak if it happened to face list which spammed lascannons or similar weapons and had re-rolls and then the spammy list wins first turn, he will just shoot Storm Eagle down, it cannot really be hidden. Additionally spammy lists already have an advantage because they can be dropping cheap spammy troops while I set up my whole army. This allows enemy to set up the good counters last to gets maximum effective fire if they happen to win the roll.
So in short, no Storm Eagle for me like this, have to scrap that list idea.

As constructive suggestion:
Who goes first should be something like every 2 difference gives +1 to the one having less drops. It is kind of refreshing mechanic that one can plan a list that has high chance of going first. The game should NOT increase amount of rolls to increase randomness if we are looking to make

The other fact that all horde troops get Objective Secured is just crazy and encourages for example CSM players to spam cultists (except cultists are nowhere near as good as conscripts or boys) and berserkers or maybe noise marines. Berserkers and Noise Marines as they have somewhat realistic chances of cleaning conscripts/boys/similar off the table in melee, assuming they make it there.
Cleaning orc boys or conscripts with shooting is insanely hard, and if you make a list that can shoot them off then you just lose to first list that spams high T and high Sv vehicles.

So the answer is 'Dont spam Stormeagles in Matched play' and 'bring more troops and boots on the ground, and plan to both go first and plan if you dont'.

Also, if your list contains only Stormeagles (with dudes in them), you're tabled instantly at the start of turn one. You lose before firing a shot.

Alpha strikes are not fun to play against. This rule makes them less likely.

Does a Flyer transport full of dudes still capture an objective?

 AduroT wrote:
Does a Flyer transport full of dudes still capture an objective?

No; units in a transport do not count as being in play, so they can't capture an objective.

Malifice wrote:
So the answer is 'Dont spam Stormeagles in Matched play' and 'bring more troops and boots on the ground, and plan to both go first and plan if you dont'.

Also, if your list contains only Stormeagles (with dudes in them), you're tabled instantly at the start of turn one. You lose before firing a shot.

Alpha strikes are not fun to play against. This rule makes them less likely.

My planned list has one single storm eagle, would you agree that one single storm eagle is not spamming?

That situation where having only flyers on table turn one makes one lose instantly does not exist. Go re-read the faq, please.

 AduroT wrote:
Does a Flyer transport full of dudes still capture an objective?

Nope.

Ghorgul wrote:
That situation where having only flyers on table turn one makes one lose instantly does not exist. Go re-read the faq, please.

‘If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends immediately and their opponent automatically wins a crushing victory.

You're right. It only kicks in if at the end of any turn after round 1 you have nothing but fliers on the board. That happens and you lose.

My point on alpha strikes stand. They invariably lead to one sided games (it either works and you crush them, or it doesnt and the crush you) that arent really that much fun to play against. I refrained from using Skyhammer last edition for just this reason.

YMMV of course and maybe thats your thing. Im not judging you. I guess I just prefer more nuanced games (we use the Maelstrom of War rules for floating random objectives in our games). Its more fun trying to score VP than to simply focus on deleting units.

Had the Avatar of Khaine get priority orders to secure an objective on his own deployment zone on turn 1 last week. Got the Eldar 4 VP on turn 1. I was on the backfoot for the rest of the game (managed to get a few back by achieving both securing an objective and 'death from the skies' when my Inceptors deleted a squad of Guardians with some lucky rolls and Bolter drill strategem after deep striking).

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't understand the point of rolling off for first turn, then immediately after rolling to seize the initiative. You already just rolled of, and you add another roll, which makes finishing deployment first even less of an advantage. The odds of getting to go first aren't that much better for the person who finished deploying first. And they had the disadvantage that the other player deploying a bunch of stuff after knowing where his opponent's entire army is.

This plays a huge advantage to certain lists, like my guard list where I have 14 DS units and 16 non DS units. Majority of the time I can just watch my oponent deploy their whole army, then counter deploy and then still have a decent chance of going first.

Honestly going back to the old way is much better then at least if you are going second you can counter deploy and have a slight counter to not going first.

 daedalus wrote:
I think objective secured is something most armies' troops should get. The rules otherwise vastly diminished the point of taking an entire subsection of, well, just about everyone's army.

I'm gonna be first in line and say that this is something elite troop choices should get, though. I don't think it's reasonable that particular units without any sort of command structure that are <20 models large should necessarily be able to out-contest a point compared to, say, a handful of space marines, or even some dire avengers. Maybe this is something that should be attached to that Sargent/Exarch/Nob/whatever character that most troop squads have.

That last point.... that's.... really, really good. I like that. Anyone else think that troop units should have to have a squad leader alive to get obsec?

I *like* this idea... now someone tell geederps to rewrite the book before it gets released

zerosignal wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I think objective secured is something most armies' troops should get. The rules otherwise vastly diminished the point of taking an entire subsection of, well, just about everyone's army.

I'm gonna be first in line and say that this is something elite troop choices should get, though. I don't think it's reasonable that particular units without any sort of command structure that are <20 models large should necessarily be able to out-contest a point compared to, say, a handful of space marines, or even some dire avengers. Maybe this is something that should be attached to that Sargent/Exarch/Nob/whatever character that most troop squads have.

That last point.... that's.... really, really good. I like that. Anyone else think that troop units should have to have a squad leader alive to get obsec?

I *like* this idea... now someone tell geederps to rewrite the book before it gets released

it's a non-starter. some factions don't have anything like a sgt/champ/squad leader.

More information from Warhammer Community:

We’ve heard a little more about what we can look forward to in the upcoming Chapter Approved, and it sounds more and more exciting the more we hear.

We learned at NOVA tonight that the new book will feature, (amongst many other things)

* An expansion for Apocalypse games of Warhammer 40,000

* Guidelines on running a planetary invasion campaign

* Updated matched play points for dozens of units and weapons across every army

* Loads of new Missions for open, narrative and matched play.

We are also bringing a whole new feature to Open Play. Designing and building your own vehicles is a feature that hasn’t appeared in Warhammer 40,000 since 5th Edition. We are going to trial some new rules to allow you to design your very own Land Raider variants and field these behemoths on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.

Finally Chapter Approved will also give Factions that have not yet received their codex some expanded rules while they wait, allowing these factions to make use of some of the cool new mechanics available in Warhammer 40,000.

Chapter Approved is looking like a must for any dedicated Warhammer 40,000 player.

I never thought I'd see the Vehicle Design Rules return to 40K in my lifetime...

Still won't be an option for a 12 man capacity Chaos Land Raider!

Custom Land Raiders?! Yes please! Also good chance I could make a Grav Cannon Razorback.

VDR is coming back?

I wonder if the VDR 'tax' will remain. IIRC, a Rhino made with the VDR cost 80 points (compared to 50 points for a Rhino in 3rd).

Sweet, being able to make your own Land Raiders should silence the complaints of a lot of Space Marine and Chaos Marine players that are butthurt that other Chapters get Land Raiders that they don't.

It will solve no other problem but that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
VDR is coming back?

Kinda. It will only allow you to design your own Land Raider and its only for Open Play.