|
It's pretty weird how fast they pushed AM out. The model range could have been easily bolstered by some new units, maybe just port some Forgeworld 30k units almost 1:1. Would have given them more time to work with the codex too. (edit) Might be that there's a new codex in the pipeline, but not in the close future? Maybe the current one is to give them a codex of some sort, that they're not stuck as an Index-only army for god knows how long.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
Attestant posted:It's pretty weird how fast they pushed AM out. The model range could have been easily bolstered by some new units, maybe just port some Forgeworld 30k units almost 1:1. Would have given them more time to work with the codex too. It's the biggest unanswered question really. They're pushing books out at a rapid rate, but what happens once they're done (which should be by the end of 2018 if they keep up this pace). Do they start over? Do they do one-shot releases with dataslates in the box? Are we getting "campaign" releases where there's a new campaign book + new units for maybe 3-4 factions at once? No-one knows right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
There's been rumblings several times this year (including from Thundercloud in this thread) that GW have several more Gathering Storm style campaign books 'ready to go' so the story keeps progressing. This is the most likely source of new kits. We know that all new models from 8E come with datasheets in the box, and that they are keeping point costs updated online and via Chapter Approved. There's no reason for any 8E codex to be 're-done' for quite a while with this structure in place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
xtothez posted:There's been rumblings several times this year (including from Thundercloud in this thread) that GW have several more Gathering Storm style campaign books 'ready to go' so the story keeps progressing. This is the most likely source of new kits. We know that all new models from 8E come with datasheets in the box, and that they are keeping point costs updated online and via Chapter Approved. There's no reason for any 8E codex to be 're-done' for quite a while with this structure in place. Come ooooooooooooooon octarius. gently caress I don't even play orks or nids (yet) and I want to see the rad poo poo that would come from that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
Attestant posted:This is already repeating some comments by other posters but my wishlist in order of personal importance: Totally agree with all of this. I do think that a big part of our vulnerability with large creatures is that heavy ranged damage is too easily spammed this edition; Lascannons at 20-25pts, Battlecannons at 22pts, and various cheap artillery that don't need LoS. At the same time we pay more points for the objectively worse HVC, Stranglethorn and Rupture Cannon. There's a big discrepancy right there. Terrible bio-cannons are definitely a big factor is discouraging large bugs too. If there's a restriction to only allow one cannon on a HT/Fex, that weapon should at least be decent. Otherwise you're sinking 150-200pts into a unit that just plinks away from 36" and rarely damages anything. I also don't get why big Deathspitters/Devourers were the only twin-linked weapons not to get their number of shots doubled. Master Twig posted:Yeah. My Tyranid wish list is about a mile long. I really really dislike the idea of making everything important a <10 wound character. The whole purpose of the character targeting rule was to stop fragile T3/T4 individuals like Captains, Commissars and Farseers being picked off from the other side of the board before they contributed anything, and for these it makes a lot of sense. Hulking monstrous creatures capable of ripping open tanks should be easily identifiable. I'm all for preventing Old One Eye being picked out while near other Carnifexes, but you shouldn't be able to screen him with gaunts. What's more, we already have a dedicated unit to protect Hive Tyrants which would become pointless if you could hide them among cheap disposable Rippers. Hive Tyrants can be fixed by making them & Tyrant Guard cheaper/tougher, which in turn justifies the existence of the latter. As for Venomthropes, why not just say their spore clouds require snap shots on them from a certain range? At least then the counter is for an opponent to get in close; often exactly where you want them. For what it's worth I don't agree with units like Daemon Princes having <10 wounds too. The core character rule needs a re-think in general tbh. Right now it's such a hard limit, and the effect of going from 9 to 10 wounds is so big that it sidelines a lot of units that fall on the wrong side of it. xtothez fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
On that note - anyone else think making Guilliman 10 wounds would make a huge change to how effective he is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Corrode posted:On that note - anyone else think making Guilliman 10 wounds would make a huge change to how effective he is? Definitely, and not in a good way. Most lists in the current meta would have no issue with blapping him before he got close. The kneejerk reaction to that would be a points drop, screwing over armies unable to field effective lascannon equivalents or that don't list tailor to deal with him. The only reasonable solution I can see would be to scrap the wound criteria in the core character rule, and use keywords / range instead. Something like: VEHICLE and MONSTER CHARACTERS may only be targeted when within 24", or if they are the closest unit. I can't think of any characters with 10+ wounds that don't already have those keywords, and it means we can start to see some more granularity rather than all decent characters having 8/9 wounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
xtothez posted:I also don't get why big Deathspitters/Devourers were the only twin-linked weapons not to get their number of shots doubled. It used to be heavy 4 twin-linked, now it's just heavy 4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
This looks huge: https://wizkids.com/2017/10/19/wizkids-announces-new-partnership-with-games-workshop/ Guess that's why the FFG licence was allowed to lapse?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Oh no. Well at least Cubicle 7 is handling the RPGs, and this gets us one baby-step closer to Space Marine action figures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Corrode posted:This looks huge: Oh great, GW is transitioning their shovelware approach from mobile games to board games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Do they start over?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Corrode posted:The relics in particular are so uninspiring that I mostly forget they exist. Plus there's barely any changes from the index except for padding out the list by putting all the Knight variants in (and really the Knights are identical except weapon loadout). It's not a bad book in terms of being weak or anything, you just feel like there could have been more to it. They really needed to wait and release more stuff along with what's there already. Yeah, that’s what bothered me the most. It was basically just a copy/paste job. There were some cool entries in the book, and I definitely love the pages on the Knight houses. But I agree with you, they needed something else. Hopefully once all the new codices are out they’ll start releasing some new models. I’d really love for AdMech to get a flyer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Ilor posted:7 previous editions of 40K indicate this is the correct answer. Snippy but untrue, if only because they haven't managed to get a full round of books out in a single edition since 3rd. 4th-6th operated on a cycle of replacing the core rules every 4 years regardless of need, then 7th was of course rushed in, now we're in 8th with no clear sign of how it'll go. Zuul the Cat posted:Yeah, that’s what bothered me the most. It was basically just a copy/paste job. There were some cool entries in the book, and I definitely love the pages on the Knight houses. It still has that feeling of a range that's only half-finished, but which they're not sure how to carry on with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Corrode posted:It's the biggest unanswered question really. They're pushing books out at a rapid rate, but what happens once they're done (which should be by the end of 2018 if they keep up this pace). Do they start over? Do they do one-shot releases with dataslates in the box? Are we getting "campaign" releases where there's a new campaign book + new units for maybe 3-4 factions at once? No-one knows right now. The most likely answer is campaign books, which they've already hinted at as being in the works and seem like the best way to add new units to multiple armies at a time. If 8th sticks around, we will likely see 2nd edition codexes at some point that incorporate units created for campaign books
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Corrode posted:On that note - anyone else think making Guilliman 10 wounds would make a huge change to how effective he is? It'd basically make him useless. The best way to balance him is really to just give more appropriate price costs to the usual Space Marine suspects that are clearly undercosted, such as Ravens and Twin-Assault Cannons, that he is often buffing. Once again, changing matched play to where Imperium and Chaos aren't keywords for a battle forged army would basically make him disappear from all non-Ultramarine armies overnight, not to mention fix a slew of other soup related problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:It'd basically make him useless. The best way to balance him is really to just give more appropriate price costs to the usual Space Marine suspects that are clearly undercosted, such as Ravens and Twin-Assault Cannons, that he is often buffing. In the meantime I like events that limit you to one detachment, maybe two. With only one detachment you can't really soup it up without loosing a lot of the codex poo poo. Two detachments exponentially increases the possible bullshit but not as bad as three. Fluffy Bunny Con(tm) that I am going to is limited to one detachment with an optional superheavy-aux at -2cp. It seems like a fun way to play without being overly 'comp' or custom banlists. I guess I'll see on Saturday how bad local nerds will break it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:33
|
|
will blow your mind.
|
Uroboros posted:It'd basically make him useless. The best way to balance him is really to just give more appropriate price costs to the usual Space Marine suspects that are clearly undercosted, such as Ravens and Twin-Assault Cannons, that he is often buffing. Just a shame that punishes a load of perfectly fine lists just on the back of a single broken build.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
WhiteOutMouse posted:In the meantime I like events that limit you to one detachment, maybe two. I too, want Genestealers Cults to be unplayable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:On the bright side, this is my second and final full tactical squad. I won't be doing another and this is the last MkIV I'll have to paint for a while too. Some "Legion" you are building. I guess it makes sense if you planning on bulking out your army with your special units... Oh wait. You need to checker up some dick bikes
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Just a shame that punishes a load of perfectly fine lists just on the back of a single broken build. The more options, the more opportunity for abuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:The more options, the more opportunity for abuse. How would that even work? Isn't he a Lord of War? EDIT: This is weird, I could have sworn I was quoting you saying a totally different thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:I too, want Genestealers Cults to be unplayable. That implies that they are currently playable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Just a shame that punishes a load of perfectly fine lists just on the back of a single broken build. A single broken list? Try a slew of variant Imperium and Chaos soup lists that have been dominating for months now. Allowing Imperium and Chaos to have their pick of the best from every codex is a huge disadvantage to Xenos who already have vastly smaller model ranges and unit selection to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
I feel like it would suck for Word Bearers, whose deal has always been Chaos Undivided as a philisophy rather than a means to the end, but every other Chaos faction would at least have god devotion for a CSM/Demon hybrid lists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Corrode posted:This looks huge: Epic reboot 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/19/craftworld-focus-saim-hann-oct-19gw-homepage-post-3/ So jetbikes and scatter lasers get a 'considerable' points reduction, and Saim-hann ones can ignore the -1 to hit penalty too. Eldar players, were jetbikes really that bad in the index? Also this happens in about 40mins: quote:On Thursday at 4:00 pm, we’ll be checking in with Tony Cottrell, head of the Forge World studio. While we can’t reveal what he’ll be showing off, we can guarantee it’ll be awesome – would you expect anything else from the team that brought you the Horus Heresy? Here's hoping they're finally going to reveal the all-but-confirmed Adeptus Titanicus plastics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Some "Legion" you are building. I guess it makes sense if you planning on bulking out your army with your special units... Oh wait.  Even in infantry-heavy RoW-less lists, that's all I've run. In my Ironwing lists there are only 20 of them crammed into rhinos. Need those points for tanks, dreadnoughts, and veterans.Ironwing first, Ravenwing later. There's almost no overlap between the two and they're so restrictive that they may as well be separate armies. I mean, Ravenwing can't even take tacticals; their only troops choices are bikes and jetbikes. Ravenwing will also make Ironwing look cheap.  I'm going to have to get a caestus. It's the only vehicle valid under both Rites of War. Flying tank.  xtothez posted:Here's hoping they're finally going to reveal the all-but-confirmed Adeptus Titanicus plastics. No one has any idea what the hell FW is up to nowadays. Safety Factor fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
I'm excited that the teaser at the end of the Saim-Hann focus indicates they're aware that grav tanks all suck right now and are going to fix them. I do wonder if Wave Serpents are going to be nerfed, they're a bit ridiculous at the moment and will only be more so if we can spend less than 80 pts on a 5-man DA squad and get a Wave Serpent with them. EDIT: I'm a bit surprised they're only doing 5 craftworlds (though I guess that's why they're not saying anything about warlord traits and relics yet, so they can fill up the other days). I would have though a tank-focused trait for Yme-Loc would have made sense. bonds0097 fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:A single broken list? Try a slew of variant Imperium and Chaos soup lists that have been dominating for months now. I dislike this purely because I have a bunch of Imperial armies and I'm really enjoying being able to freely mix them and use more of my stuff, but I accept that's selfish. I'd rather see something like "must share two keywords" for the current detachments, and then a bonus detachment type which is like 1 HQ and 0-1 or 0-2 of every other slot (including DTs) which only needs to share one keyword. Maybe gives 1 CP, maybe none. That way you can still mix and match stuff, but you don't just get to take a full Guard brigade + Guilliman and Razorbacks. e: I also liked the suggestion upthread about targeting monster/vehicle characters if within 24". It gives the player an active choice to make, rather than the current on/off condition where either the character is completely immune to shooting or is completely open to it. Living Image fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
WhiteOutMouse posted:In the meantime I like events that limit you to one detachment, maybe two. The better answer is NO LORDS OF WAR. Or at least limiting them to only in 2k+ points a side armies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The better answer is NO LORDS OF WAR. Or at least limiting them to only in 2k+ points a side armies. And no more than 25% of that total.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Broken Record Talk posted:And no more than 25% of that total. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Now that vypers are bikers I can't wait to run a unit of 3 for that 20" move, T5, 6 wound, double shuriken cannon SOULBURSTS!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Given that GW are working on releasing Primarchs there's no way there's going to be any of those restrictions on Lords of War. Their stance seems to be that if you buy one of those expensive centerpiece models you should be able to use it in actual games, which really isn't that unreasonable. They seem to be able to balance at least some of the LoWs in 8th even- I feel like Knights are in a pretty reasonable place overall, possibly even a bit overcosted for what they bring to the table. If stuff like the Shadowsword or Guilliman gets toned down we'll be in a much better place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
It continues to surprise me that anyone looked at the Shadowsword and thought "this needs to be cheaper and better."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
bonds0097 posted:How would that even work? Isn't he a Lord of War? I did say something completely different, but then I realized it wouldn't work for the exact reason you specified so I changed my post and hoped nobody would notice.  Corrode posted:I dislike this purely because I have a bunch of Imperial armies and I'm really enjoying being able to freely mix them and use more of my stuff, but I accept that's selfish. I'd rather see something like "must share two keywords" for the current detachments, and then a bonus detachment type which is like 1 HQ and 0-1 or 0-2 of every other slot (including DTs) which only needs to share one keyword. Maybe gives 1 CP, maybe none. That way you can still mix and match stuff, but you don't just get to take a full Guard brigade + Guilliman and Razorbacks. I like the idea of providing bonus CP based on how coherent the detachments are. Arguably an army of Ultramarines should be more cohesive than a unit of Ultramarines working with Blood Angels, and they would be more cohesive than a unit of Ultramarines and Blood Angels working with the Inquisition supported by an artillery detachment. So my approach would be very simple: 1. After selecting a Warlord, remove one CP for every faction keyword the Warlord has in his data card. 2. Add one CP for every faction keyword that every unit in your army shares. 3. For purposes of determining cohesion ignore all units in Auxiliary Detachments (ones that already cost a CP) and those that have the Unaligned faction keyword.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:I like the idea of providing bonus CP based on how coherent the detachments are. Arguably an army of Ultramarines should be more cohesive than a unit of Ultramarines working with Blood Angels, and they would be more cohesive than a unit of Ultramarines and Blood Angels working with the Inquisition supported by an artillery detachment. So my approach would be very simple: A much simpler way to go about this would be to get rid of the 3 base CP and give a single CP for each keyword that is shared by your entire army. I do really like the concept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Pendent posted:A much simpler way to go about this would be to get rid of the 3 base CP and give a single CP for each keyword that is shared by your entire army. I do really like the concept. Orks only share two keywords, otherwise I would do exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:The most likely answer is campaign books, which they've already hinted at as being in the works and seem like the best way to add new units to multiple armies at a time. The irony is this means GW and PP are basically swapping book methodology. Warmahordes stuff Mk 1 & 2 came out in books alternating between lines where everyone got some new stuff and advanced the plot. Now with Mk3 they've switched to books releasing for a single faction with their new models therein and the plot advancing through the novels. Although they do have a 'faction Christmas' coming in December to release stuff for everyone until they get a faction book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:29
|
|