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.

There’s also ensuring the info is reasonably accessible.

At work, we stick to a specific font, in a specific size. Anything put in writing needs to be as simple English as we can manage.

Whilst we do offer further accessibility options when required, most folk find out letters and emails easy to read and digest, because of the above factors.

I’m blessed with good eyesight, not even needing reading specs despite being mid/early 40’s. And even I don’t want to be squinting at a card which has smaller text in order to squeeze everything on to a single size.

Consistency. Accessibility. One card. Two sides. Specific info on each.

I’m genuinely failing to see the problem.

 Dolnikan wrote:
This probably rates as a stupid question, but does anyone know what the rough size of these new cards will be? I can imagine that it al being on a trading card sized card would be an absolute disaster for many players because the font would have to be miniscule for instance.

I believe that one of the Warhammer Community articles specified A5 as the size, which would seem to match the image Jidmah posted above.

I assume they’ll be the same size as the AoS ones.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
One side is for list building, one side is for gameplay.

And I'd agree with that if that was the case, except that's not what we've seen. Even with the Land Raider example two elements of gameplay - its transport capacity and the tank's basic equipment that comes as standard - are listed on the 'list building' side.

And none of it is necessary given the sheer amounts of blank space on the card.

Presumably during gameplay you can rely on WYSIWYG to know which guns your model has, and come on, "I routinely forget how many people fit in a Land Raider" is not an argument in good faith.

But basically we're split on what's more intuitive: a consistent layout or less card turning and there's really no way to reconcile how we prefer to read data.

Exactly. The way GW have chosen to do it seems to be going for greater consistency, given the amount of info some cards will need on the front. Also of note, is that most (maybe all?) units are getting some sort of ability that will appear on the right side of the front of the card, along with Faction and any Core abilities. So even a unit with very few weapon options to take up the space on the front, may end up needing more space on the right of the card than a single side gives, depending on things like unit composition and anything else that might appear on the right on the back of the card. Doing it the way GW has chosen to do it seems to eliminate the problem of some of those edge cases.

I really don't see why people are so annoyed by GW deciding on consistency of layout. Seems like a weird thing to get annoyed over and the reasoning seems clear to me.

So I guess that Epic Hero keyword is the equivalent of: ''Your army can only include one X model.''.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So I guess that Epic Hero keyword is the equivalent of: ''Your army can only include one X model.''.

No need to guess, they said as much in one of the earlier articles:



https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So I guess that Epic Hero keyword is the equivalent of: ''Your army can only include one X model.''.

No need to guess, they said as much in one of the earlier articles:



https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

Somehow completely missed that part. Now the question is, how many Nids will get that keyword? Swarmlord for sure. The rest of old named ones probably unless they are gone as unique.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The side also lists what the unit is armed with, which wasn't immediately clear when looking at the side with just the weapon profiles.

Now if the points costs were on the card as well, then we might be talking...

The point costs that might be invalidated in 3-6 months after a balance pass?

---

To be honest I am actually mildly entertained how many people here have never touched an AoS book or model. We have very similar things in AoS and it works fine. Warscrolls with information and sometimes it is dual cards because the card contains oodles and oodles of information(especially the god beings) and not many there have complained half as much as as people do here about the bloody cards.

"Why can't it all be on one side?!?!?!"

Because they try to keep the font size standardized because some people have less than perfect vision. Not everybody wants a single Magic Card with a size 5 font essay.

People don't like to hear that their game is becoming like the hated game
No matter how good this works or obvious the similarities are

 Eldarsif wrote:

"Why can't it all be on one side?!?!?!"

Because they try to keep the font size standardized because some people have less than perfect vision. Not everybody wants a single Magic Card with a size 5 font essay.

Other languages than english might also need more space in general to express the same content, technical translations can be difficult like that. I'd think they'll do at least german, french and spanish version for these, to cover the big (in the wargaming world) language families.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
... and come on, "I routinely forget how many people fit in a Land Raider" is not an argument in good faith.

Good thing I never made that argument. Phew!

 Eldarsif wrote:
Now if the points costs were on the card as well, then we might be talking...

And the rules themselves never change...

I wonder, does the to wound table stay the same? Or will it change to a pre 8th version, e. g. if the toughness is more than double the strength then the attack can´t wound.

Firefox1 wrote:
I wonder, does the to wound table stay the same? Or will it change to a pre 8th version, e. g. if the toughness is more than double the strength then the attack can´t wound.

Multiple people playing the test games have confirmed that the wound table has remained the same as in 9th.

Firefox1 wrote:
I wonder, does the to wound table stay the same? Or will it change to a pre 8th version, e. g. if the toughness is more than double the strength then the attack can´t wound.

Considering there's a special rule for weapons to always wound on 6+ regardless of S/T, I expect there is a cutoff point where you can't wound without that rule.

Come on Guass weapons!

Tsagualsa wrote:

Other languages than english might also need more space in general to express the same content, technical translations can be difficult like that. I'd think they'll do at least german, french and spanish version for these, to cover the big (in the wargaming world) language families.

I'm now picturing a German datasheet with several 30-letter words to describe Thunderhawk transport capacity

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Firefox1 wrote:
I wonder, does the to wound table stay the same? Or will it change to a pre 8th version, e. g. if the toughness is more than double the strength then the attack can´t wound.

Considering there's a special rule for weapons to always wound on 6+ regardless of S/T, I expect there is a cutoff point where you can't wound without that rule.

My assumption was that "critical wounds" are just a shorthand core rules term for the old "unmodified wound roll of a 6", and don't have any innate effect other than being used to trigger special rules or weapon traits like Devastating Wounds.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Considering there's a special rule for weapons to always wound on 6+ regardless of S/T, I expect there is a cutoff point where you can't wound without that rule.

I don't think you've properly parsed that.

We know of the following rules:
1) [Lethal Hits] which causes critical hits to automatically wound.
2) As a default, 6+ to wound cause critical wounds.
3) critical wounds always wound regardless of S/T.

The reason why it is worded this way is because we already know that some weapons can cause critical wounds on lower rolls ([Anti-Vehicle], for example) and because critical wounds sometimes trigger other effects, like [Devastating Wounds], which turns damage into mortal wounds.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
One side is for list building, one side is for gameplay.

And I'd agree with that if that was the case, except that's not what we've seen. Even with the Land Raider example two elements of gameplay - its transport capacity and the tank's basic equipment that comes as standard - are listed on the 'list building' side.

And none of it is necessary given the sheer amounts of blank space on the card.

I mean the model should tell you what it has. Capacity is not a crucial thing you access after the start of the game.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So I guess that Epic Hero keyword is the equivalent of: ''Your army can only include one X model.''.

No need to guess, they said as much in one of the earlier articles:



https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

It says 'one of each epic hero.' Its only labeling them as unique entities, not that you can't take all the epic heroes in the faction.

Voss wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So I guess that Epic Hero keyword is the equivalent of: ''Your army can only include one X model.''.

No need to guess, they said as much in one of the earlier articles:



https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

It says 'one of each epic hero.' Its only labeling them as unique entities, not that you can't take all the epic heroes in the faction.

That's what i read 'one X model' as: one Guilliman, one Cawl, one Lord Solar, and so on. Maximum one each, with no limit on the total.

Nids

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/03/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-tyranids-2/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gensquealers are W2 and a 5++!

Chaos Marines tomorrow, might clear up some stuff about DG, WE and TS etc.

Loopstah wrote:
Chaos Marines tomorrow, might clear up some stuff about DG, WE and TS etc.

How so? They're different Codexes.

I’ve posted images of the Nid stuff in the Nid thread in case anyone is Work Blocked.

Double sided cards are to be universal so formatting is the same regardless of unit options, language being printed etc. More importantly (for GW), double sided cards are harder for home users to print off themselves, making a purchase of official cards more likely.

Nids look good. I like the focus on Ld-based abilities and it's good to see they finally moved away from Nids being completely immune to Morale. They also get 2 Faction abilities, which is good to see as it doesn't restrict GW to trying to come up with a single, powerful ability for every faction.

I remain a little concerned that we're not seeing a very significant dip in lethality in some of these units. Genestealers getting having 4A each and potentially re-rolling all wounds is very strong. Not quite as powerful as now, but it's still not the reduction I was hoping for across the board. At least we'll see a reduction in buffs for many units with the changes to Psychic and auras reducing the opportunities to improve a unit's base stats.

In Genesquealers defence?

Being S4, D1, heavy units and vehicles will prove a problem, as even re-rolling wounds Dreadnoughts are going to need serious plinking.

Though I guess a Broodlord will be a Unit Character type, and may add some needed muscle.

They’re gonna absolutely butcher light to medium infantry though. As is tradition!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In Genesquealers defence?

Being S4, D1, heavy units and vehicles will prove a problem, as even re-rolling wounds Dreadnoughts are going to need serious plinking.

Though I guess a Broodlord will be a Unit Character type, and may add some needed muscle.

They’re gonna absolutely butcher light to medium infantry though. As is tradition!

Well they can do the adaption into Lethal Hits on Monster/Vehicle.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In Genesquealers defence?

Being S4, D1, heavy units and vehicles will prove a problem, as even re-rolling wounds Dreadnoughts are going to need serious plinking.

Though I guess a Broodlord will be a Unit Character type, and may add some needed muscle.

They’re gonna absolutely butcher light to medium infantry though. As is tradition!

That Shadow in the Warp skill has the potential to be a nasty late-game swing if you manage to battleshock away some of the objective holders.

I forgot about that!