Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21 29 30 31
Results 601 to 620 of 620

Thread: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

  1. #601
    Commander Captain Marius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brum, UK
    Posts
    761

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    @Voss fair play I do like to assume things, and I know what that can lead to! Thing is Ive played AoS since its release and seen these rules and all the special rules that interact with them in practice - and i think theyre great!

    I like the distinction between the unit making a tactical, orderly withdrawal in the Movement phase, then failing a morale test in the Morale phase representing troops being ground underfoot, individuals (rather than the unit) fleeing the field, or succumbing to their injuries, or (my favourite) soldiers staying behind to get the critically injured to safety. Maybe they shouldve just called it Battleshock, which i think is nice and vague and doesnt come with the preconceptions associated with the old Morale rules.
    Marius Stormwrought

    Lord-Celestant of The Stormwrought, Warrior Chamber of the Astral Avengers Stormhost

  2. #602
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    On campaign in Maryland
    Posts
    9,905

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny View Post
    Nids and Orks have ways to mitigate losses from moral, not ignore them.
    A well built nid army will outright ignore them until it doesn't matter anymore. Orks are more mitigation, but you have to burn down the hordes the hard way before you can hope to do any morale damage to the meganobs or burnaboyz riding along next to them. It doesn't matter if you kill all but one of an effective ork unit, if there is a morale blob nearby, they don't care.

    As for complaints of the morale rules favoring hordes; wasn't this always the case?
    Under all previous editions of the game, if you suffer 25% casualties you had to take a morale check. Which unit is more likely to have to take these tests, a 30 strong horde, or a 5 man elite unit?
    The horde, unless unlucky. It was more likely to take casualties, due to some combination of lower WS, T and armor. But keep in mind, in 8th, rubric marines run off and drop dead from heart attacks. The what is 'immune or mucks about with morale' is either really random or a bolt-on feature of hordes, not something fluff based.

    Would you feel happier if the same effects were achieved by stats? If Nids in synapse range had their leadership boosted to 456, and Nurgle zombies were given a leadership of 777?
    (Of course this issue there would be that this would make zombies immune to other effects based on leadership such a psychic powers)
    At least it would be consistent, rather than a bunch of special snowflake rules. (The death of USRs is a huge step backwards in terms of design).

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Marius View Post
    I like the distinction between the unit making a tactical, orderly withdrawal in the Movement phase, then failing a morale test in the Morale phase representing troops being ground underfoot, individuals (rather than the unit) fleeing the field, or succumbing to their injuries, or (my favourite) soldiers staying behind to get the critically injured to safety. Maybe they shouldve just called it Battleshock, which i think is nice and vague and doesnt come with the preconceptions associated with the old Morale rules.
    They should just call it Instability, since that's what it is. The unit magically takes more wounds in the end phase, unless they have especially customized anti-magic rules that prevent that kind of damage.
    ----------------------------------
    And lo, the Return!

  3. #603
    Commander Captain Marius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brum, UK
    Posts
    761

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Me I like the Magic Carpet phase where each model gets magically lifted off the table then reappears nearby as if by magic. Then theres the Magic Missiles phase where I roll a bunch of dice for whatever reason and some of my opponent's models vanish into thin air, unless they have especially customised anti-magic rules that prevent that kind of damage (like high toughness, good armour saves, invulnerable saves, negative hit or wound modifiers, extra saves, cover, lots of wounds... blimey some of these models are almost immune to being removed unless you can just slog through all their exceptions to being removed from the table!) See also the Magic Melee Phase. Im not a fan of the Magic Spells phase tho, far too abstract!

    Apologies to anyone who accidentally read all that!
    Marius Stormwrought

    Lord-Celestant of The Stormwrought, Warrior Chamber of the Astral Avengers Stormhost

  4. #604
    Fighter of the Nightman Denny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    2,241

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    A well built nid army will outright ignore them until it doesn't matter anymore..
    All I can say it when I play Nids they don't have unlimited sources of synapse. The fact that units have to stay in synapse range also restricts mobility; the flyrant can zoom off to kill something, but if he does he leaves the troops exposed. Hormagaunts might be quick, but they can't just surge forward without support.

    If they was no synapse rule, do you think guants would be viable? Given their low toughness, lack of leadership and minimal saves they would simply be erased from the board in a turn or two. Those sort of troops simply don't work without some means of leadership mitigation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    Orks are more mitigation, but you have to burn down the hordes the hard way before you can hope to do any morale damage to the meganobs or burnaboyz riding along next to them. It doesn't matter if you kill all but one of an effective ork unit, if there is a morale blob nearby, they don't care.
    By 'the hard way' do you mean 'shoot them with anything as they have minimal saves nda die by the truckload to massed bolter fire, let alone special weapons? Again, I just cannot see how orks would work without moral mitigation. They have had some rule to this effect since 3rd edition; there is a reason for this . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    The horde, unless unlucky. It was more likely to take casualties, due to some combination of lower WS, T and armor.
    Isn't that the answer to the question 'which unit dies quicker, one with lower WS, T and armor or one with higher WS, T and armor'?

    Its a correct answer, but I'm not sure that was my question. Yeah, hordes tend to have lower stats because they are cheaper (though Orks are notably more resilient than Wyches). But that will still be the case now. The morale rules simply favour larger units; 10 orks suffer more than 30, 5 Chaos Marines more than 20. This has not changed. Suggesting the mechanic of the new morale rules now 'favour' hordes when it previously didn't is disingenuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    At least it would be consistent, rather than a bunch of special snowflake rules. (The death of USRs is a huge step backwards in terms of design).
    I get people think its worse. I just don't think it will be in practice. Maybe it is simpler to say that Khorne berserkers get the special rules 'Rage and Counter Attack' (see another book for the meaning of these rules) rather than '+1 attack in the first round of combat'. We will find out when we play 8th.
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquisitor Engel View Post
    There are WAY better outlets for your sexual frustration on the Internet than Necrons.
    The Lost and the Discounted: Big Guns Incoming

  5. #605
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,777

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Orks look extremely frustrating to play with or against- they have so many special rules!
    First there's the pesky triple-save, which seems all too common- and since one save is before rolling the damage and one comes after there's the potential for lots of exciting dice-passing and trying to remember which model took how many wounds!
    Then in any turn in which an Ork unit takes casualties you need to count up the number of Orks to see what it's Ld is (and as stats now go over 10 you can't just assume a maximum)- but hey, maybe one of those other units has more orks, so you'd better count up their models too!
    Finally, check for the Warboss and/or Nobz- and decide if you want to take the D3 casualties or possibly give all of the running orks yet another special save!

    On top of all of that it seems like they're getting a psychic power that sounds hideously abusable.

    Looks like they've really achieved their goal of making a simple, smooth, easy to play game... :/

    I get people think its worse. I just don't think it will be in practice. Maybe it is simpler to say that Khorne berserkers get the special rules 'Rage and Counter Attack' (see another book for the meaning of these rules) rather than '+1 attack in the first round of combat'. We will find out when we play 8th.
    One thing we have seen is that the Forgeworld Super-Dread has a special rule 'Dark Fury' to give it an extra attack when armed with two close combat weapons. That kind of indicates that even the extra attack from 2 hand weapons will be presented as a special snowflake rule for every unit. That's not simple, that's just a waste of space, since I'm sure even the newest kid can tell what the 'Extra attack' USR does within 3 seconds.

    Speaking of that super-dread, the power-level system looks seriously shoddy there. It has clear best weapons- there's not a question at all about siege claw vs siege drill- but hey, by power level they must be equal!
    Orcs and Goblins, Wood Elves, Necrons, Tyranids
    W / D / L
    1 / 2 / 139847
    Everyone else's win totals are completely accurate.

  6. #606
    Fighter of the Nightman Denny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    2,241

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Geep View Post
    One thing we have seen is that the Forgeworld Super-Dread has a special rule 'Dark Fury' to give it an extra attack when armed with two close combat weapons. That kind of indicates that even the extra attack from 2 hand weapons will be presented as a special snowflake rule for every unit. That's not simple, that's just a waste of space, since I'm sure even the newest kid can tell what the 'Extra attack' USR does within 3 seconds.
    Or it might mean not every unit with two weapon will get an extra attack, it will be instead include in the profile. Which might actually reduce some confusion from those units that always have two combat weapons and need to specify whether the extra attack is included in the profile or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geep View Post
    Speaking of that super-dread, the power-level system looks seriously shoddy there. It has clear best weapons- there's not a question at all about siege claw vs siege drill- but hey, by power level they must be equal!
    Yep. Everyone can see that one is better than the other. Therefore everyone who wants to optimize the weapons loadout will do as you suggest. Power Level can therefore be assumed to represent the best loadout for a unit. If someone chooses a different loadout for personal preference then they will be aware they are deliberately handicapping themselves for fun/fluff. Or if there is no clearly best loadout then the weapons are balanced and any combination is fine.

    Power level is a rough estimate for ease of comparison. You still have points for a more precise comparison if desired.
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquisitor Engel View Post
    There are WAY better outlets for your sexual frustration on the Internet than Necrons.
    The Lost and the Discounted: Big Guns Incoming

  7. #607
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    On campaign in Maryland
    Posts
    9,905

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Sorry Voss, I've messed up. See my post below.

    Lord Damocles
    Last edited by Lord Damocles; 26-05-2017 at 19:46.
    ----------------------------------
    And lo, the Return!

  8. #608
    Fighter of the Nightman Denny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    2,241

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    So 7th is now a clean clear ruleset?

    USR would be pretty clear if units didn't have loads of them, along with special snowflake rules on top and exceptions and additions, plus the USR that are comprised of several other USR.

    How about we try the new way and see if it is simpler?
    Oh, and as I have already noted, if everyone has special snowflake rules, then they aren't special snowflake rules. They're just rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquisitor Engel View Post
    There are WAY better outlets for your sexual frustration on the Internet than Necrons.
    The Lost and the Discounted: Big Guns Incoming

  9. #609
    Commander Captain Marius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brum, UK
    Posts
    761

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Re the replacement of USRs with rules on the datasheet: i do prefer this approach as i honestly struggled to remember the sheer number of USRs in 7th ed, especially as so many units had extra variations on top of this. I especially didnt like the sheer amount of time it took to find rules as they were spread over multiple books. This new solution isnt perfect however - we already dont have all the rules on the one page (see references to ATSKNF and Death to the False Emperor), but hopefully this will be minimal. Experience with AoS has invariably shown that it takes several games to remember to use all the rules for my units, even with them all consolidated onto warscrolls! Ive found the best AoS games have been when each player keeps an eye on their opponents scrolls and reminds them if they miss something - a win isnt a real win if uve exploited an opponent with a rubbish memory (ie me!!)

    In other news good god those Inceptors are rocking two half range heavy bolters!!
    Marius Stormwrought

    Lord-Celestant of The Stormwrought, Warrior Chamber of the Astral Avengers Stormhost

  10. #610
    Chapter Master Wolf Lord Balrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    West TN, USA
    Posts
    2,394

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny View Post
    How about we try the new way and see if it is simpler?
    Oh, and as I have already noted, if everyone has special snowflake rules, then they aren't special snowflake rules. They're just rules.
    The point in referring to the 8th Edition presentation of special rules as "special snowflake" is that they aren't part of the core rules, which USRs were. Also, potentially every unit could have its own unique version of every special rule. Its horrifically inelegant game design, making it virtually impossible to design an "all-comers" list, even harder than it was in 7th Ed. The result being that what happens in your 8th Ed games will often be dictated by the interactions of special rules that only one side in each interaction has any clue about. This leads to more of that un-fun feeling that you aren't *playing a game*, you're just watching a set-piece unfold, and winning or losing has little to do with what you decide during the game.

    Hey, maybe I'm wrong though. I would be delighted to be so.



    Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk
    He was, after all, an Imperial Space Marine of the Space Wolves Chapter. What more could he possibly ask from life than this? He had a loaded boltgun in his hand and the Emperor's enemies before him. In this life, there was no greater pleasure to be found than performing his duty and ending the lives of those sorry heretics.

  11. #611
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,440

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Apologies everyone, I've made a mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    It's interesting that GW consciously moved from having lots of similar variations of rules which represented the same things (Furious Charge, Furious Assault, Berserk Charge...) to having a set of universal special rules (more or less, anyway) between 3rd and 4th editions in order to improve the game, and are now doing the exact opposite ...in order to improve the game.

    Either USRs weren't actually an improvement (/were actually detrimental) and GW just stuck with them regardless for three editions, or the removal of USRs isn't actually an improvement now.
    Neither scenario makes GW look great at rules design...
    The above wasn't actually Voss's post. I had intended to reply to him, but appear to have accidently used my modly powers instead, and edited his post with what I had intended to be my reply.

    I'll just go and sit in the corner where I can't break anything else
    Last edited by Lord Damocles; 26-05-2017 at 19:56.

  12. #612
    Commander
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    529

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf Lord Balrog View Post
    The point in referring to the 8th Edition presentation of special rules as "special snowflake" is that they aren't part of the core rules, which USRs were. Also, potentially every unit could have its own unique version of every special rule. Its horrifically inelegant game design, making it virtually impossible to design an "all-comers" list, even harder than it was in 7th Ed. The result being that what happens in your 8th Ed games will often be dictated by the interactions of special rules that only one side in each interaction has any clue about. This leads to more of that un-fun feeling that you aren't *playing a game*, you're just watching a set-piece unfold, and winning or losing has little to do with what you decide during the game.

    Hey, maybe I'm wrong though. I would be delighted to be so.



    Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk
    Maybe I'm wrong, too. But I have a horrible feeling we are both on a predictable line of thought.
    You can achieve more through the application of kindness and a big stick than through kindness alone.

  13. #613
    Commander Necrontyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    708

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    http://imgur.com/a/hYQup

    Rules leaked.
    Quote Originally Posted by scrubout View Post
    Necrontyr, you are now an inspiritation to the grenadier armies of Warseer, congratulations.
    Ressurrecting my Necrons
    http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...849-MY-Necrons
    My Mordian Army! (now complete!)
    http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106839

  14. #614
    Archanist Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,440

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    So it doesn't look like access points are a thing any more.

    Also I don't see any restriction on charging after shooting rapid fire/heavy weapons?

  15. #615
    Chapter Master R Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,064

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Damocles View Post
    It's interesting that GW consciously moved from having lots of similar variations of rules which represented the same things (Furious Charge, Furious Assault, Berserk Charge...) to having a set of universal special rules (more or less, anyway) between 3rd and 4th editions in order to improve the game, and are now doing the exact opposite ...in order to improve the game.

    Either USRs weren't actually an improvement (/were actually detrimental) and GW just stuck with them regardless for three editions, or the removal of USRs isn't actually an improvement now.
    Neither scenario makes GW look great at rules design...
    I don't think the problem is with individual special rules, or USR's, as I can see merit for both, but with GW's constant lack of discipline. They create these USR's, and put them in the BBB. But then every army book (they did this in Fantasy too), they'd add a bunch of ABSRs. Then, they'd take a bunch of units, and invent totally new special rules for them, rather than just use the special rules already listed. Naturally, this became confusing, as these rules ended up on three different places, and Fantasy was the good one. 40k added data sheets, IA codecies, allies, faction books, and who the hell knows what else, to the mix. Not only that, but these rules could get astoundingly complex at times, or were simply unclear.

    As for new 40k, having individual rules on the cards is not the real problem. If the rules are clear, concise, and follow a familiar format/pattern, they there will be little trouble remembering them for most players. In such a case, each Special Rule may follow one of several 'archetypal' rules, effectively being a USR with a unique name to fit with the theme of the unit. I think the problem will come when and if (likely when), GW start to pile rule after rule onto the card, and then combine it with a bunch of other rules from other sources (e.g: faction books), and stop following familiar formats.

    Now, like most people, I like the odd Special Rule. I think that they can make the gaming experience richer, give units character, and allow new ways to interact with the game itself. However, I also think that less is more. Special rules should only exist if it adds something to the unit that cannot be done another way, and not because it seems 'cool', and if the rule itself is quite clear and elegant.

    As for the rules that are coming out, well, I think that the basic idea is fine, a Special rule for each unit +a faction wide rule, but the emphasis placed on those bonuses seems troubling. Personally, I don't mind the synapse rule, because I think that it is 1) characterful for the Nids, 2) it will affect the way Tyranid players will play the game, and 3) it will affect the way people play against Tyranids. I can see it setting up this game of hide and seek with synapse givers and other troops trying to take them out. Or, maybe they want to wound them to slow them down. So does the Nid player hide in the synapse bubble, or rush ahead? That sort of thing.

  16. #616
    Commander
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    529

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by R Man View Post
    I don't think the problem is with individual special rules, or USR's, as I can see merit for both, but with GW's constant lack of discipline. They create these USR's, and put them in the BBB. But then every army book (they did this in Fantasy too), they'd add a bunch of ABSRs. Then, they'd take a bunch of units, and invent totally new special rules for them, rather than just use the special rules already listed. Naturally, this became confusing, as these rules ended up on three different places, and Fantasy was the good one. 40k added data sheets, IA codecies, allies, faction books, and who the hell knows what else, to the mix. Not only that, but these rules could get astoundingly complex at times, or were simply unclear.

    As for new 40k, having individual rules on the cards is not the real problem. If the rules are clear, concise, and follow a familiar format/pattern, they there will be little trouble remembering them for most players. In such a case, each Special Rule may follow one of several 'archetypal' rules, effectively being a USR with a unique name to fit with the theme of the unit. I think the problem will come when and if (likely when), GW start to pile rule after rule onto the card, and then combine it with a bunch of other rules from other sources (e.g: faction books), and stop following familiar formats.

    Now, like most people, I like the odd Special Rule. I think that they can make the gaming experience richer, give units character, and allow new ways to interact with the game itself. However, I also think that less is more. Special rules should only exist if it adds something to the unit that cannot be done another way, and not because it seems 'cool', and if the rule itself is quite clear and elegant.

    As for the rules that are coming out, well, I think that the basic idea is fine, a Special rule for each unit +a faction wide rule, but the emphasis placed on those bonuses seems troubling. Personally, I don't mind the synapse rule, because I think that it is 1) characterful for the Nids, 2) it will affect the way Tyranid players will play the game, and 3) it will affect the way people play against Tyranids. I can see it setting up this game of hide and seek with synapse givers and other troops trying to take them out. Or, maybe they want to wound them to slow them down. So does the Nid player hide in the synapse bubble, or rush ahead? That sort of thing.
    Well said. It's this lack of discipline that adds to stupid levels if rules bloat. GW have always had a ridiculous propensity toward conflating rules and fluff in a single paragraph, bestowing a rule that is almost functionally identical to a pre-existing rule. See the myriad ways to be 'fearless' in 7th ed.
    You can achieve more through the application of kindness and a big stick than through kindness alone.

  17. #617
    snee...SNEE! nagash66's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,130

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    With the basic rules having now leaked online i must say my positive attitude is shaken, but without the extrended and full version of the rules (which i assume most of us will be using) still too early too tell.

    Just spare 30k oh sweet FW, make your own core book and all will be well.
    If you like the Horus Heresy, mediocre painting and terrible camera work, check out my plog! For The Emperor and Sanguinius!

    Mat Ward Fact #1432- To appease the few wargamers dissatisfied with his work, Mat Ward has used his own money to set up a help-line for them to call. Please dial 1-800-WHOGIVESA****
    Guild up to join the Mat Ward Defence League!

  18. #618
    Chapter Master Malagor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    In the dark woods
    Posts
    2,675

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by nagash66 View Post
    Just spare 30k oh sweet FW, make your own core book and all will be well.
    Strongly doubt it.
    30k's strength is that anyone that played 40k could just jump straight into 30k due to the shared ruleset.
    And GW has/is attempting to make 30k easier to get into as well with the cheap plastic models so you can be sure that GW won't split the playerbase like that.
    Armies of Malagor:
    Warhammer Fantasy/9th Age: Beastmen, Bretonnia, Vampire Counts, Lizardmen, Ogre Kingdoms, Orcs & Goblins, Dwarfs, Legion of Chaos, Undead Legion.
    Warhammer 40k: Chaos Space Marines, Ad-mech, Sisters of Battle
    Warmahordes: Skorne, Trollbloods, Khador, Circle Orboros

  19. #619
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    On campaign in Maryland
    Posts
    9,905

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by nagash66 View Post
    With the basic rules having now leaked online i must say my positive attitude is shaken, but without the extrended and full version of the rules (which i assume most of us will be using) still too early too tell.
    Keep in mind, the 'advanced rules' may just be scenarios, objectives, army building and stuff like that. I don't see them adding rules that changes that phases of the game turns in any significant way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny View Post
    So 7th is now a clean clear ruleset?
    Obviously not. But that isn't the USRs' fault. As the errata for 6th, 7th added way too many and generally made a mess of things. But if you want a clean clear ruleset, you start with the majority of the rules in common. You don't plan it as an explosive mess.

    How about we try the new way and see if it is simpler?
    Don't need to. Exception based design (special snowflake rules) isn't a new thing. Its invariably a mess, and requires a lot of attention and errata... something I still doubt GW is capable of, and requires a lot of effort even if they suddenly are. It can be functional, but it is never _simpler_.+

    Really, how can it be? The second paragraph of the core rules refer the player to datasheets for rules for units and terrain. That is, conservatively, hundreds of pages to hunt down relevant rule snippets.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Damocles View Post
    So it doesn't look like access points are a thing any more.

    Also I don't see any restriction on charging after shooting rapid fire/heavy weapons?
    Doesn't seem to be. 'Assault' weapons now seems to mean can fire after running, at a penalty, which naturally flamers won't care about (and not something I'd actually recommend doing with a flamethrower).

    Also, shooting from transports is not a thing (indeed, while embarked, by default units can neither do nor be affected by anything). Even though it apparently is a thing according to one of the preview bits, at least with pistols and open topped vehicles (or maybe just specific vehicles that used to be open topped and now just happen to have a similar special snowflake rule)


    ++++
    Ugh. The attack resolution rules annoy me. It has a comment in the beginning about 'you can roll multiple attacks together,' but the way each step is worded doesn't really support that. You can common sense your way through it, but it rather chokes on wound allocation at step 3. Nothing in the wording really prevents the owning player from allocating all wounds and making all saving throws on a single model and disregarding any excess wounds as lost with no effect. Obviously you shouldn't, but the rules aren't actually written that way. It really needs a clear section of batch rolling.

    It's also very unclear what happens with multiwound models, except under perfect circumstances. When the unit is undamaged, you could theoretically split 5 incoming wounds among 5 completely uninjured models. Say three don't save, since incoming wounds are specifically allocated to a model, they shouldn't transfer, and you end up with 3 wounded models. (or batch rolling multiple attacks is a thing that shouldn't happen, despite what the opening paragraph says) If they're shot again by someone else, you now have to allocate any wounds to 'that model,' which is actually any of several wounded models.

    They also use 'the wound' and 'the damage' interchangeably, and as game terms they aren't the same thing. Damage is part of a weapon's characteristics, and applied against a model's wound characteristic.
    Last edited by Voss; 27-05-2017 at 02:04.
    ----------------------------------
    And lo, the Return!

  20. #620
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,777

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    So all terrain now gives +1 cover? I assume that'll be changed by later terrain data sheets, but for now it's interesting to know that a wheat field is just as useful as a trench line.
    Flamers- the famous 'ignore cover' weapon, no longer do that job at all and instead have the role of absurd overwatch fire (no longer being reduced to 'D3 hits'). Some weapons will have to change or assault will be practically impossible against some enemies (Wraithguard).

    Hit and wound allocation is the real killer though-
    As Voss points out, it says you can roll multiple attacks together- then gives no easy way to do that.
    Can units with multiple toughnesses exist? Nothing explains how to deal with that.
    Having wound allocation, then saves, then damage, then more saves is simply a nightmare of excessive complexity- and the proper way to handle some of the basics is very unclear.
    For example- a Power Fist hits my unit of Tyranid Warriors 3 times. I allocate the wounds- as my Warriors have 3 wounds each, it seems sensible to put all 3 onto one model. He fails his save, and the D3 damage is worthless.
    Or worse- A unit of power-fist armed guys hit a unit of mega-knobs with nearby painboy. They score 8 wounding hits- so I assume I allocate that as 3, 3 and 2? Then I make saves and let's say that becomes 2, 1 and 2. We then turn that into damage- which we'll say is 4, 2 and 3. Then I get to make my special save and that becomes 2, 2 and 2. That's been a hideous amount of dice rolling, plus I've had to keep track of which model took what at each stage of the rolling, and now I have to remember which 3 of my models have been reduced to 1 wound each. That's about as inelegant as it's possible to make the system.
    Orcs and Goblins, Wood Elves, Necrons, Tyranids
    W / D / L
    1 / 2 / 139847
    Everyone else's win totals are completely accurate.

Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21 29 30 31

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •