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.

It is not like that 2 Wounds for Marines/Termis was already asked for in 5th Edition instead of having 5++/5+++/6++++ saves to handle the spam of AP2 weapons

But 8th changed a lot and addeing Damage 2 weapons to kill of medium infantry easier while keeping that medium infantry at 1 Wound is a mistake at best

and yes, if you increase the damage of weapons and make a difference between a 1 Shot + Damage 2 and 2 Shot Damage 1 weapon
you also need to adjust the stat lines to make a difference between the intended targets (and keeping 1 Wound but changing Thoughness to counter Damage 2 just means that the designer don't know what they are doing)

D6 Damage is another problem, fixed values would solve it but this is notgoing to happen (Krak Missile D4, LaserCannon D6 and you can adjust point cost better and overall balance)



But this is also why I have less hope for 9th, because "we added all the crazy ideas we have every 60 seconds"

this is why 8th is what it is in the first place, none of those crazy ideas was thought thru but just added because it sounded cool with no one taking a look if anything else need to be changed as well

hence 9th will not be a 8.5 but a new game after all, with the 8th legacy "written with 9th in mind" won't work as soon as the "designed for 9th" stuff hits

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.

You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.

That's part of why I know it won't happen any time soon.
It'd definitely require other aspects of the game to change around it to be viable. Whether that be alternating activation or other ways to react or what have you.

Has anyone thought about the idea that the rulebook won't come with the starter set anymore? So the 120£ could be the starter and the rulebook which would mean that the starter would be cheaper by itself which in turn wouldn't make the change from Dark Imperium as apparent. This way the entry point would be more than before at 120£ but it wouldn't seem as bad as the starter would still be probably around 100£

Matrindur wrote:
Has anyone thought about the idea that the rulebook won't come with the starter set anymore? So the 120£ could be the starter and the rulebook which would mean that the starter would be cheaper by itself which in turn wouldn't make the change from Dark Imperium as apparent as the "starter" would be about the same but won't include the rulebook

I don't really see the point of a "starter" with no rules to start - remember GW does intend starters for new players and not just to increase the collections of existing players.

Now I could see cutting the price by using a softcover, since they've done that in prev. editions. Then they could sell a hardback separately with the full fluff/art/etc.

As far as I recall there hasn't been a starter set without rules in it. DI sold so well that GW would probably want to double down on the hardnack book again. Also, the production would have started at least an year ago before all the crisis stuff so my money is for a hardback inside

we have seen 2 pictures of the forces instead of the combined picture
the Marine part is identical to the original Dark Vengance Set

my conclusion on the stuff we have seen:

- the 3rd Hero in the box is limited to the initial release and/or pre-order exclusive

- the forces will be available as stand-alone box set (like with the first AoS one)

- therefore there will be rules in the box, a booklet with the downloadable rules printed + booklet with printed datasheets for the models and scenarios together with a big rulebook (similar to the AoS box)

- hence the big hardcover book with the full rules will not see a stand-alone release until later that year

 kodos wrote:
we have seen 2 pictures of the forces instead of the combined picture
the Marine part is identical to the original Dark Vengance Set

my conclusion on the stuff we have seen:

- the 3rd Hero in the box is limited to the initial release and/or pre-order exclusive

- the forces will be available as stand-alone box set (like with the first AoS one)

- therefore there will be rules in the box, a booklet with the downloadable rules printed + booklet with printed datasheets for the models and scenarios together with a big rulebook (similar to the AoS box)

- hence the big hardcover book with the full rules will not see a stand-alone release until later that year

Further thought, they're usually keen on displaying all phases of the game in starter boxes. The game has a psychic phase, there are no psykers in the marine faction so is there maybe something for crons in there?

I expect the new guy to act in the Psyker Phase and Necrons have something to shut Psyker down

OR:

Psyker Phase will be re-done as general Hero-Phase were all abilities from Heros are activated

 kodos wrote:
I expect the new guy to act in the Psyker Phase and Necrons have something to shut Psyker down

OR:

Psyker Phase will be re-done as general Hero-Phase were all abilities from Heros are activated

Certainly would mirror sigmar and allows armies with no psykers to interact/enable some play in that phase.

I'm curious to know if pistols will continue to be usable in close combat, and if so, if they will take the Necromunda route by firing them with WS instead of BS.

Also, let's see how/if they rework the subfactions/clans system, because for some armies (like orks) it doesn't fit that much, and I'm not talking from the standpoint of rules. Things like Bad Moon Kommandos or Goff Lootas make little sense thematically, and I'm sure that all armies have their own odd examples.

Esper wrote:
I'm curious to know if pistols will continue to be usable in close combat, and if so, if they will take the Necromunda route by firing them with WS instead of BS.

Also, let's see how/if they rework the subfactions/clans system, because for some armies (like orks) it doesn't fit that much, and I'm not talking from the standpoint of rules. Things like Bad Moon Kommandos or Goff Lootas make little sense thematically, and I'm sure that all armies have their own odd examples.

I'm quietly hopeful there'll be a CP tax to using a different subfaction keyword, just to try and encourage armies staying in theme a little more as you say.

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I expect the new guy to act in the Psyker Phase and Necrons have something to shut Psyker down

OR:

Psyker Phase will be re-done as general Hero-Phase were all abilities from Heros are activated

Certainly would mirror sigmar and allows armies with no psykers to interact/enable some play in that phase.

Agree, it would also help out clean up the mess of all sorts of random abilities triggering at the start/end of turns or phases. Some abilities need to trigger at a specific time to work or be as powerful as they are, but many like orders, c'tan powers, MW auras or the tau command auras would change little or not at all if they were done in the psychic phase, except people forgetting their stuff less often because they now have a "now I need to do the fancy stuff" reminder as part of the game.

My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.

Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.

If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.

Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.

If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.

If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.

Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.

If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.

I agree. I detest all of the re-rolls. Especially with all the hitting on 2's re-roll 1's etc. I would be glad to see the back of it. But, others really like it for those clutch rolls. I re-roll per turn maybe more palatable. It's been a long time since I've seen a psyker suffer perils of the warp.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.

You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.

Mathematically it's all the same.

You can fold wound rolls into armour rolls instead so each player has one roll per attack.

My only complaint about it are the times it robs the game of those epic moments that stay with you.

A lone guardsmen on an objective survives against all odds. He lunges at the badly wounded Chaos Lord looming over him who will undoubtedly crush him in short order. Somehow the bayonet finds it's mark. The armor save tumbles to a stop. A 1! The Lord slumps into the rubble. The guardsmen stands triumphant...

Or at least he would have. "I'll reroll that"

Dudeface wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.

Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.

If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.

If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.

I don't, but I don't like people who over use them. One here or there is fine, but when every phase you use one it's just meh.

I agree. I detest all of the re-rolls. Especially with all the hitting on 2's re-roll 1's etc. I would be glad to see the back of it. But, others really like it for those clutch rolls. I re-roll per turn maybe more palatable. It's been a long time since I've seen a psyker suffer perils of the warp.

This is part of the reason, maybe if some rolls were absolutely not allowed to be re-rolled it would be better. For example explode results, a 1/36 chance to make the first vehicle/MC of the turn explode/deathroes if ridiculous, considering how difficult it can be to pop multiple vehicles/MC in one turn.

Vehicle/MC explosion results should be easier anyway, its the sort of carnage that should be in the game, but that is a different conversation.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.

And then go full lotr and ditch ugoigo for alternating phases. It is an actual workable and balanced ruleset after all, much to the gnashing of teeth of 40k only grognards.

 Eldarain wrote:
My only complaint about it are the times it robs the game of those epic moments that stay with you.

A lone guardsmen on an objective survives against all odds. He lunges at the badly wounded Chaos Lord looming over him who will undoubtedly crush him in short order. Somehow the bayonet finds it's mark. The armor save tumbles to a stop. A 1! The Lord slumps into the rubble. The guardsmen stands triumphant...

Or at least he would have. "I'll reroll that"

Exactly. This is my huge issue with them in particular.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.

Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.

If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.

If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.

I don't, but I don't like people who over use them. One here or there is fine, but when every phase you use one it's just meh.

I agree. I detest all of the re-rolls. Especially with all the hitting on 2's re-roll 1's etc. I would be glad to see the back of it. But, others really like it for those clutch rolls. I re-roll per turn maybe more palatable. It's been a long time since I've seen a psyker suffer perils of the warp.

This is part of the reason, maybe if some rolls were absolutely not allowed to be re-rolled it would be better. For example explode results, a 1/36 chance to make the first vehicle/MC of the turn explode/deathroes if ridiculous, considering how difficult it can be to pop multiple vehicles/MC in one turn.

Vehicle/MC explosion results should be easier anyway, its the sort of carnage that should be in the game, but that is a different conversation.

I can understand that but then they're essentially choosing not to use their other strats, which is a strategic decision on their part (even if it is a boring one). I've never seen anyone burn 6cp on single die re-rolls in a turn though, rarely more than 2 though from personal experience. I do agree the prevalence of re-rolls from auras however does need to die, it just slows everything down and a modifier would be far quicker /easier to use or instead make it apply to 1 unit.

Dudeface wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.

Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.

If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.

If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.

I don't, but I don't like people who over use them. One here or there is fine, but when every phase you use one it's just meh.

I agree. I detest all of the re-rolls. Especially with all the hitting on 2's re-roll 1's etc. I would be glad to see the back of it. But, others really like it for those clutch rolls. I re-roll per turn maybe more palatable. It's been a long time since I've seen a psyker suffer perils of the warp.

This is part of the reason, maybe if some rolls were absolutely not allowed to be re-rolled it would be better. For example explode results, a 1/36 chance to make the first vehicle/MC of the turn explode/deathroes if ridiculous, considering how difficult it can be to pop multiple vehicles/MC in one turn.

Vehicle/MC explosion results should be easier anyway, its the sort of carnage that should be in the game, but that is a different conversation.

I can understand that but then they're essentially choosing not to use their other strats, which is a strategic decision on their part (even if it is a boring one). I've never seen anyone burn 6cp on single die re-rolls in a turn though, rarely more than 2 though from personal experience. I do agree the prevalence of re-rolls from auras however does need to die, it just slows everything down and a modifier would be far quicker /easier to use or instead make it apply to 1 unit.

In own turn

Psychic Phase - Re-roll a failed cast/perils
Shooting Phase - Re-roll a failed hit/wound/damage
Charge Phase - Re-roll a failed charge
Assault Phase - Re-roll a failed hit/wound/damage

Opponents turn

Movement Phase - Reroll a failed counter strat (auspex scan, however rare)
Psychic Phase - re-roll a counter strat
Shooting Phase - Re-roll a failed save/Explode
Charge Phase - Re-roll overwatch damage/wound (rare)
Assault Phase - Re-roll a save/Explode

That's how easy it is to blow through 6ish command points in a single turn, and it absolutely happens. I also find it super cheap to do so as that one wound could have cost your opponent 3x CP's to pull off for example, which is super swingy then, you are effectively paying 1CP for the chance to negate multiple CP's worth of investment from the opponent.

Yep, I don't like them.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.

You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.

Mathematically it's all the same.

You can fold wound rolls into armour rolls instead so each player has one roll per attack.

I'd also like to point out that rolling saves is neither interactive nor does it allow you to influence the game. It just gives you something to do.
The only way to interact with your opponent during their shooting phase is stratagems and rare abilities of units that allow you to respond to getting shot.

A rules only softcover in the starter is exactly the opposite of what they need for the intended used (ie new players)

One of the things that keeps a new player interested is the background and art that all the long term players frequetly know off by heart so a nice hardcover with plenty of eye candy will help keep new player buying (at least for a while)

a small softcover with just the rules in is dry and offputting to a new player even though it might be convenient for established players who travel to their games

If your spending 3CP in strategums to cause 1 wound that can be saved the problem is your probably using a strategum at the wrong tine or it's an overcosted strategum.

Some people go way to ham on the reroll strategum but that is their choice. I would say many people use it way too much but if they want to burn all their CP turn 1 go ahead.

But see when you snake eyes on your 2d6 shot weapon it can really help.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.

You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.

Mathematically it's all the same.

You can fold wound rolls into armour rolls instead so each player has one roll per attack.

With d6 you get lot less variety than with 2d6.

4+ to wound, 4+ to save. 25% chance of going through. Single d6 it's 16% or 33%.

3+, 5+, 22% chance.

So yeah it's mathematically same...for SOME combos. Not all.

Idea can work but would need dice with more granularity or killing is more samey. Plasma gun or lascannon? Bolter or heavy bolter? More targets for both will be same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
If your spending 3CP in strategums to cause 1 wound that can be saved the problem is your probably using a strategum at the wrong tine or it's an overcosted strategum.

Some people go way to ham on the reroll strategum but that is their choice. I would say many people use it way too much but if they want to burn all their CP turn 1 go ahead.

But see when you snake eyes on your 2d6 shot weapon it can really help.

Issue with rerolls is specifically it makes things too reliable. Why even bother have dice rolls? Just remove perils from the game since you just avoid them with rerolls.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'd also like to point out that rolling saves is neither interactive nor does it allow you to influence the game. It just gives you something to do.

By giving you something to do it is therefore interactive. It's something you can do to save your troops. Not having it and just sitting there with nothing to do would be awful.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoiler:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.

You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.

Mathematically it's all the same.

You can fold wound rolls into armour rolls instead so each player has one roll per attack.

With d6 you get lot less variety than with 2d6.

4+ to wound, 4+ to save. 25% chance of going through. Single d6 it's 16% or 33%.

3+, 5+, 22% chance.

So yeah it's mathematically same...for SOME combos. Not all.

Idea can work but would need dice with more granularity or killing is more samey. Plasma gun or lascannon? Bolter or heavy bolter? More targets for both will be same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
If your spending 3CP in strategums to cause 1 wound that can be saved the problem is your probably using a strategum at the wrong tine or it's an overcosted strategum.

Some people go way to ham on the reroll strategum but that is their choice. I would say many people use it way too much but if they want to burn all their CP turn 1 go ahead.

But see when you snake eyes on your 2d6 shot weapon it can really help.

Issue with rerolls is specifically it makes things too reliable. Why even bother have dice rolls? Just remove perils from the game since you just avoid them with rerolls.

I would argue part of the problem is perils being only a 1 in 16 chance, I get that they dont want then to become the suicide units but maybe it should have been all doubles as some psychic powers are game changing especially when they get the 90% success rate some factions can build.

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

 kodos wrote:
we have seen 2 pictures of the forces instead of the combined picture
the Marine part is identical to the original Dark Vengance Set

my conclusion on the stuff we have seen:

- the 3rd Hero in the box is limited to the initial release and/or pre-order exclusive

- the forces will be available as stand-alone box set (like with the first AoS one)

- therefore there will be rules in the box, a booklet with the downloadable rules printed + booklet with printed datasheets for the models and scenarios together with a big rulebook (similar to the AoS box)

- hence the big hardcover book with the full rules will not see a stand-alone release until later that year

Further thought, they're usually keen on displaying all phases of the game in starter boxes. The game has a psychic phase, there are no psykers in the marine faction so is there maybe something for crons in there?

Dark Imperium didn't have any Psykers in it either so I don't think it's a requirement for the starter set to show off all the rules in that sense.

Dudeface wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.

Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.

If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.

If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.

That's exactly why I hate the re-roll strat. Games so very rarely have these amazing, memorable moments now where luck favours one side over the other because everyone knows to save their CP re-roll for that one specific moment. I've experimented playing without the core rulebook strats and the game was massively better for it, IMO. Morale suddenly mattered more, there were fewer janky interactions in the assault phase where a random guy charging in one corner of the battlefield got your warlord killed due to the combat interrupt, and things like damage rolls became more random, which required more reacting on the fly fomr both players as the reduced reliability meant you couldn't basically plan out your turn with a high degree of accuracy before the turn started. I'm a little worried by the idea of GW introducing more core stratagems, TBH.

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

 kodos wrote:
we have seen 2 pictures of the forces instead of the combined picture
the Marine part is identical to the original Dark Vengance Set

my conclusion on the stuff we have seen:

- the 3rd Hero in the box is limited to the initial release and/or pre-order exclusive

- the forces will be available as stand-alone box set (like with the first AoS one)

- therefore there will be rules in the box, a booklet with the downloadable rules printed + booklet with printed datasheets for the models and scenarios together with a big rulebook (similar to the AoS box)

- hence the big hardcover book with the full rules will not see a stand-alone release until later that year

Further thought, they're usually keen on displaying all phases of the game in starter boxes. The game has a psychic phase, there are no psykers in the marine faction so is there maybe something for crons in there?

Dark Imperium didn't have any Psykers in it either so I don't think it's a requirement for the starter set to show off all the rules in that sense.

Dudeface wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.

Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.

If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.

If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.

That's exactly why I hate the re-roll strat. Games so very rarely have these amazing, memorable moments now where luck favours one side over the other because everyone knows to save their CP re-roll for that one specific moment. I've experimented playing without the core rulebook strats and the game was massively better for it, IMO. Morale suddenly mattered more, there were fewer janky interactions in the assault phase where a random guy charging in one corner of the battlefield got your warlord killed due to the combat interrupt, and things like damage rolls became more random, which required more reacting on the fly fomr both players as the reduced reliability meant you couldn't basically plan out your turn with a high degree of accuracy before the turn started. I'm a little worried by the idea of GW introducing more core stratagems, TBH.

Dark Imperium has the malignant plaguecaster