454 replies to this topic

[Bryan Blaire]

I also said quality of the previews. That includes the previewed rules. The rules preview was just as poor. It barely told us anything. The wee two minute video was a fantastic round up of the coming rules changes. It was amusing and well made. The 10 (15?) minutes of discussion afterwards gave almost no extra preview of the rules, which given it was a rules preview isn't very good.

On top of that I identified their comment about ground breaking rules as being misleading, which is again, about the rules preview.

I have no issue with you Bryan, but in this instance I feel you're mis-interpreting what was said and being overly confrontational about it.

Well, I really got the impression that Carnelian wasn't only responding to you, and the others dumping on the previewed rules didn't say anything about the quality of the preview, so my response to you included that idea as well. Carnelian didn't miss the point.

The preview was just that - it's a preview, designed to tell us little, wet the whistle and all that. If it had been a rules reveal, I would have expected more. They previewed rules changes, that what happened. There's nothing to complain about there. If you were left wanting to know more, it did exactly what was intended.

And the "ground-breaking" sounded like more marketing speak to me. Nothing in a game is going to be that ground breaking unless they introduced 300 lb dice that get dropped from a crane to roll them, or come up with some crazy method of waging war that has never been used in real life. The method used for the rules may still be different to what came before, so even if a concept as reused, they would still be different. We don't know yet to start complaining that the rules aren't different enough from a previous edition.

And back to Carnelian's point - if they bring back some form of rules that I enjoy, then it's pretty goofy to worry about whether they are reused from a former edition or modified versions of a former edition's rules, etc.

But no one here needs to be GWhater Edge Lords, it just isn't cool any more - let's have actual discussion and less drama.

So yes, a rules preview leaves us little concrete to discuss, but a whole lot of speculation - which is what a preview is for.

Per a mate who's done playtesting:
"Only thing is blast weapons on vehicles cannot be fired in combat against the unit they are engaged with
For fear of blowing themselves up
But if you have multiple weapons you can shoot them too, declare the blast on another unit and if those kill the models you are engaged with you can still fire at the other unit."
 
And since most tanks are equipped with Blast Weapons (laughs in Land Raider)

That sounds much closer to what I was thinking - still hoping for a Tank Shock type Melee attack though.

[Brother Dimetrius]

Rules changes sound encouraging. More detail in terrain rules especially sounds good.

[TootiusNootius]

Rules changes sound encouraging. More detail in terrain rules especially sounds good.

 

I play a lot of games with the Cities of Death rules, I hope a lot of that is incorporated into the new stock terrain rules. It's really good, makes even smaller scale games feel far more visceral and tense.

 

New LOS rules has to be one of my top picks for things that've got me excited, it's the worst aspect of 8th in my opinion. 

 

I'm pretty happy with all of what we've seen so far, just want a look at that box set now.

[Dark Shepherd]

Most of the rules changes sound good

One worry re tponmuch CP was referencing Custodes for needing more CP, which is what they also did when they upped CP for deatchments before

[Doghouse]

 

Hold on so let me get this straight...I get to have a Captain get utterly destroyed smiting Xenos scum in service of Him on Terra...and he can come back in later games as a Dreadnought for another bash at them???

 

Sold.

 

I mean, what's stopping you from doing that now? Because it's an official Games Workshop™ approved shopping list/collection list?

 

Because this style of progression is much more fun for me to invest in and why many play games like the original Necromunda or Blood Bowl which you become attached to models a lot more as they effectively level up. Plus it is helpful for those that might not understand or experienced the idea to have a set of rules so that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

Sure you could head canon it and simply not use the two models in the same game or alternatively you could watch your Captain progress using a system everyone has access to where there is no certainty that he'll survive in the narrative you are creating. I find it becomes more dramatic and I become attached to models grimacing when I put them in a situation where they could get their face melta'd off or sucked into the warp and you know there is no coming back.

 

Most people I know have a Private Smith moment, the lowly infantryman who takes down a carnifex on his own or are still standing despite a unit of Aggressors killing everyone around him. Systems like this generally encourage you to forge a narrative and if they include an XP system private smith can indirectly progress through his unit as it levels up by fighting more battles.

 

It's just another way to play the game without the need to head canon or home brew rules and I think that is an excellent addition if they pull it off correctly.

 

As long as it doesn't massively impact the game ( they said it can be played in matched play so it might well not) and it's fun then I am all for it.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

So, I looked at the "9 great things" video. 40k has been "polished to perfection." Glad to hear we won't need an FAQ then.

[Indefragable]

So, I looked at the "9 great things" video. 40k has been "polished to perfection." Glad to hear we won't need an FAQ then.

 

Zinger!

 

 

<watches as WAAC players find a loophole 2hrs after launch>

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

 

So, I looked at the "9 great things" video. 40k has been "polished to perfection." Glad to hear we won't need an FAQ then.

 

Zinger!

 

 

<watches as WAAC players find a loophole 2hrs after launch>

 

2 hours? I think you underestimate them.

[Toxichobbit]

 

I also said quality of the previews. That includes the previewed rules. The rules preview was just as poor. It barely told us anything. The wee two minute video was a fantastic round up of the coming rules changes. It was amusing and well made. The 10 (15?) minutes of discussion afterwards gave almost no extra preview of the rules, which given it was a rules preview isn't very good.

On top of that I identified their comment about ground breaking rules as being misleading, which is again, about the rules preview.

I have no issue with you Bryan, but in this instance I feel you're mis-interpreting what was said and being overly confrontational about it.

Well, I really got the impression that Carnelian wasn't only responding to you, and the others dumping on the previewed rules didn't say anything about the quality of the preview, so my response to you included that idea as well. Carnelian didn't miss the point.

The preview was just that - it's a preview, designed to tell us little, wet the whistle and all that. If it had been a rules reveal, I would have expected more. They previewed rules changes, that what happened. There's nothing to complain about there. If you were left wanting to know more, it did exactly what was intended.

And the "ground-breaking" sounded like more marketing speak to me. Nothing in a game is going to be that ground breaking unless they introduced 300 lb dice that get dropped from a crane to roll them, or come up with some crazy method of waging war that has never been used in real life. The method used for the rules may still be different to what came before, so even if a concept as reused, they would still be different. We don't know yet to start complaining that the rules aren't different enough from a previous edition.

And back to Carnelian's point - if they bring back some form of rules that I enjoy, then it's pretty goofy to worry about whether they are reused from a former edition or modified versions of a former edition's rules, etc.

But no one here needs to be GWhater Edge Lords, it just isn't cool any more - let's have actual discussion and less drama.

So yes, a rules preview leaves us little concrete to discuss, but a whole lot of speculation - which is what a preview is for.

Per a mate who's done playtesting:
"Only thing is blast weapons on vehicles cannot be fired in combat against the unit they are engaged with
For fear of blowing themselves up
But if you have multiple weapons you can shoot them too, declare the blast on another unit and if those kill the models you are engaged with you can still fire at the other unit."
 
And since most tanks are equipped with Blast Weapons (laughs in Land Raider)

That sounds much closer to what I was thinking - still hoping for a Tank Shock type Melee attack though.

 

I get what you're saying and more discussion and less drama is good. But I also feel that people should be able to vent (a bit at least) without having someone jump down their throat, which is happening more and more on these forums and inevitably leads to arguments. People antagonising anyone who's disappointed by what GW previews/releases is, imo even worse than the initial negativity that they're responding to. Healthy discussion means both sides have a say, not just the positive side. It really feels like posters aren't allowed to express displeasure anymore (NOT due to forum rules or mods, please don't think that I'm complaining about the forum or how it's run).

 

But this really isn't the time and place for us to discuss this, it needs it's own thread (and I'll be honest, it's not one I feel qualified to make but I'll chip in if someone else does).

 

With regards to the preview point. You're not wrong, but I'd also say preview isn't a defined term so can easily include more or less info while still being a preview. Technically everything they say before 9th hits will be a preview and I suspect a lot of it will be more substantial than what we saw today. i'm grateful for previews, I just wish they'd tone down the hype, because it's a source of constant toxicitiy and emnity within the community. I doubt anyone truly believes the hype, it's more that it annoys people when it's non-stop and almost always disappointing. Of course, you can't please everybody, but more substance would be nice to match the corporate chest pumping .

 

Like the command points reveal. I'm really nervous about this. Yes, that means I want to know more. But on the other hand, nervous isn't something you want to hear your customers say about a major new reveal for your flagship product. Command points have been a major contentious issue all through 8th and the changes could go either way. A bit more information to say what is changing would really help. We know there will be more command points, we know it's aimed at curbing soup and we know it's based, at least in part, on game size. But we don't really have an outline of how it will work. That's what I'd like from an announcement like this. Not details or actual rules (those come later), but an outline or framework so I can see the direction they're going in. In that respect, I feel they failed.

 

I don't feel every rules change needs that much detail. For example, the new Crusade system was fine as vague hints, because it's something new, not adjustments to a portion of the rules that have been a major issue for the last 3-4 years. Vague hints to get people excited is 100% the right call when it comes to new stuff like that.

 

On the other hand and to curb negativity, they did a good job with the tank and flyer rules in the preview video. It said what was changing and (despite my comment about it just being an old rule brought back) it's a good change that was adequately explained.

[SpiritFox22]

 

So, I looked at the "9 great things" video. 40k has been "polished to perfection." Glad to hear we won't need an FAQ then.

 

Zinger!

 

 

<watches as WAAC players find a loophole 2hrs after launch>

 

Two hours?  I give them 2 minutes tops.

[Raven1]

All sounds good, i heard command points will be you start with more and it costs CP to buy in other factions or FOCs, which feels like a good change depending on the costs!

It honestly sounds good, but I personally don't like it as playing Chaos I often use 2-3 factions at a time.

[Ishagu]

I'm very excited. The changes they've outlined will completely change the game.

The existing units will still work but the dynamic will be different. Hype!

[Warhead01]

Was there any word on how many models in a unit count as a horde? 

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Was there any word on how many models in a unit count as a horde? 

Knowing GW, they'll put it at either 10+ or 25+.

Edited by Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra, 23 May 2020 - 03:41 PM.

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

Personally I'm not so sure I like the tanks firing point blank in Melee phase - I'd rather have seen pintle weapons only for something like that, and Tank Shock type attacks, with the main gun(s) still be able to fire at other units.

I assume tanks won't be able to shoot the unit attacking them, therefore making melee units tagging them safe while not making the tank useless? Best of both worlds IMO.

Per a mate who's done playtesting:

"Only thing is blast weapons on vehicles cannot be fired in combat against the unit they are engaged with
For fear of blowing themselves up

But if you have multiple weapons you can shoot them too, declare the blast on another unit and if those kill the models you are engaged with you can still fire at the other unit."

And since most tanks are equipped with Blast Weapons (laughs in Land Raider)

I had better be able to burninate whatever is locking my LRR in combat with twin flame storm cannons. If not I shall be very cross.

[Warhead01]

 

Was there any word on how many models in a unit count as a horde? 

Knowing GW, they'll put it at either 10+ or 25+.

 

Your probably right, have to laugh at a rule that probably only good for 1 and at best 2 rounds of a game. 

[Lord Marshal]

My concern about Terrain is that within six months I could easily see every new release doubling down on special rules that make it useless again.

 

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I doubt GW can quite contain themselves from doing that.

[Gederas]

Was there any word on how many models in a unit count as a horde? 

Knowing GW, they'll put it at either 10+ or 25+.

Your probably right, have to laugh at a rule that probably only good for 1 and at best 2 rounds of a game.

Again, per the playtester I've spoken with (grain of salt here):
 

It's 10 or more.

 

So basically, Marines rarely, if ever, have to worry about them. Guard/Orks/Tyrannids however, must be VERY afraid of them.

Edited by Gederas, 23 May 2020 - 04:08 PM.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

 

Was there any word on how many models in a unit count as a horde? 

Knowing GW, they'll put it at either 10+ or 25+.

Your probably right, have to laugh at a rule that probably only good for 1 and at best 2 rounds of a game.

Again, per the playtester I've spoken with (grain of salt here):
 

It's 10 or more

 

So just enough to hurt Imperial Gua - sorry, Astra Militarum^tm while not hurting those who run their Space Marines in units of less than 10 (which is, as I understand it, the Thing To Do with current morale rules).

[Colonel Cross]

 

 

Was there any word on how many models in a unit count as a horde? 

Knowing GW, they'll put it at either 10+ or 25+.

Your probably right, have to laugh at a rule that probably only good for 1 and at best 2 rounds of a game.

Again, per the playtester I've spoken with (grain of salt here):
 

It's 10 or more.

 

So basically, Marines rarely, if ever, have to worry about them. Guard/Orks/Tyrannids however, must be VERY afraid of them.

 

 

Oof, as if my guard didn't die like dogs already!

Edited by Colonel Cross, 23 May 2020 - 04:23 PM.

[Toxichobbit]

 

So just enough to hurt Imperial Gua - sorry, Astra Militarum^tm while not hurting those who run their Space Marines in units of less than 10 (which is, as I understand it, the Thing To Do with current morale rules).

 

 

Swings and roundabouts. Smaller squads is better for morale, but worse for command point/stratagem efficiency.

 

We'll have to see how this shakes out with this new blast rule and the changes to command points though.

[Slayer le Boucher]

This is not a Rules preview; but info regarding the distribution of Codex Rules:



And I think this should be communicated much more, because it might mend some wounds.
(I know this addition comes later than it needed to be, but still... it's nice it's finally here.)

 

FInally something good.

 

 

My hope is that the CP system gets re-worked completely. Doing things in-game like holding OBJ or killing a unit/type earns you CP and such.

 

Overall my hope with terrain and flyers and unit types in general is that they function with a bit of logic. Aka "that's an airplane. Your Ork Boy can't jump up and hit it." rather than being a slave to a wonky ruleset. Things should function overall how a reasonable person approaching the table should think they function, filtered through how the game mechanics actually works. The fiddly bit should be in how something does something rather than if it can at all. 

 

I Honestly think that, gaining CP points during the game when you complet/hold objectives would be something more dynamic and interesting.

 

You have your starting CP(6-8) and certain objectives gives between 1-3 CP's when they are fullfilled.

[Panzer]

 

 

So just enough to hurt Imperial Gua - sorry, Astra Militarum^tm while not hurting those who run their Space Marines in units of less than 10 (which is, as I understand it, the Thing To Do with current morale rules).

 

 

Swings and roundabouts. Smaller squads is better for morale, but worse for command point/stratagem efficiency.

 

We'll have to see how this shakes out with this new blast rule and the changes to command points though.

 

 

It's actually better because it allows you to get more CP in the first place. 

[ST.Lazarus]

 

 

 

So just enough to hurt Imperial Gua - sorry, Astra Militarum^tm while not hurting those who run their Space Marines in units of less than 10 (which is, as I understand it, the Thing To Do with current morale rules).

 

 

Swings and roundabouts. Smaller squads is better for morale, but worse for command point/stratagem efficiency.

 

We'll have to see how this shakes out with this new blast rule and the changes to command points though.

 

 

It's actually better because it allows you to get more CP in the first place. 

 

 

 

If I would hazard a wild guess;  the detachment system will switch around so it will be more focus on fitting your army into as few detachments as possible. I could see with that in mind that Imperial guard will get back the ability to blob up and ignore morale thru commissars.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

 

So just enough to hurt Imperial Gua - sorry, Astra Militarum^tm while not hurting those who run their Space Marines in units of less than 10 (which is, as I understand it, the Thing To Do with current morale rules).

 

 

Swings and roundabouts. Smaller squads is better for morale, but worse for command point/stratagem efficiency.

 

We'll have to see how this shakes out with this new blast rule and the changes to command points though.

 

 

It's actually better because it allows you to get more CP in the first place. 

 

 

 

If I would hazard a wild guess;  the detachment system will switch around so it will be more focus on fitting your army into as few detachments as possible. I could see with that in mind that Imperial guard will get back the ability to blob up and ignore morale thru commissars.

 

 

We can just hope.