8e - Live Q&A Takeaways

For psychic i personally feel they need to consolidate the amount of powers available down and get rid of psychic focus. Maybe only have faction specific disciplines and reduce the number of powers in each down. At the moment i feel the psychic phase is clunky and can take too much time. it can take a half hour before setup sometimes to decide on powers.

Not the mention the extreme imbalance of a psyker heavy force against no psykers at all.

My personal preference for psychics would be that warp charges remain as they are, each psyker gets all the powers in their disciplines (but probably fewer powers in each discipline/fewer disciplines). Can cast one power per ML and each power has a casting value that has to be equalled or beaten by rolling however many psychic dice you choose. Perils on any multiple of 1 on the dice.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I hope they don't screw up psychics. I really enjoy that element of the game(not necessarily the implementation, but the idea), and I really don't want it to be worthless or overpriced.

I've heard they're talking about limiting the positive effects of psychic buffs to the faction of the buffer so that you can't use psychics from one faction with a buffee from another faction to create unforeseen deathstars.

I'd like the psychic power generation and psychic phase in general to be faster, but I don't want it to suck.

They've already said 40K will be working on a keyword system, so Dark Angel psychers will only be able to effect models with the Dark Angel keyword. This already puts to bed horribly broken death stars like the Bark Bark Star.

Personally I'm hoping that the Psychic Phase will work on an expanded version of Sigmars magic.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Picked this up from another forum (ignore numbering):

*List of stuff*

How reliable is this information on the other forum?

I was hoping for a change in cover rules (preferably to a 'to hit' mod, like Shadow War/1st&2nd ed 40k).

Also, it has already been noted by developers that it's not necessarily the case that there are 'no more destroyer-type weapons'.. it's just that there are no more stat caps.. so you're still going to presumably have weapons with really high S and damage output; everything just continues to scale upward.

Actually, the more that I think about it, the more that cover providing an armor modifier makes sense. After all, a lascannon would be able to punch right through that tree that you're hiding behind, while a fortified wall would be able to block bolter rounds like armor.

I just hope that there is a 'to hit' mod for trying to shoot at fast-moving and flying vehicles.

Count Adhemar wrote:

My personal preference for psychics would be that warp charges remain as they are, each psyker gets all the powers in their disciplines (but probably fewer powers in each discipline/fewer disciplines). Can cast one power per ML and each power has a casting value that has to be equalled or beaten by rolling however many psychic dice you choose. Perils on any multiple of 1 on the dice.

This would definitely speed up the powers generation process, since there wouldn't be one! I wouldn't be opposed to something like this, but of course the existing powers would have to be changed, I'd think.

Every psyker having access to the current version of invisibility might not make the game better.

No I completely agree. To hit modifiers would make sense for something like invisibility while save modifiers would work for shrouding etc. Keeping things like prescience can stay as well

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

My personal preference for psychics would be that warp charges remain as they are, each psyker gets all the powers in their disciplines (but probably fewer powers in each discipline/fewer disciplines). Can cast one power per ML and each power has a casting value that has to be equalled or beaten by rolling however many psychic dice you choose. Perils on any multiple of 1 on the dice.

This would definitely speed up the powers generation process, since there wouldn't be one! I wouldn't be opposed to something like this, but of course the existing powers would have to be changed, I'd think.

Every psyker having access to the current version of invisibility might not make the game better.

Yeah, I'd probably go for 3 powers per discipline with roughly the equivalent of a current Warp Charge 1, 2 and 3 in each. Invisbility (in it's current form) would not feature in any discipline!

Invisibilty needs to die on an Haemonculus experimentation table. Preferably over the course of several centuries.

I liked the old version of invisibility, when no one else ever really took it.

I really don't think slow movement will/is an issue for our units. Also, it wouldn't make sense for GW not to turn the Fleet rule into something useful.

And even if Wyches only had 6" movement, so what? Certainly, it isn't the movement that makes them so bad and almost all of our mobility comes fom skimmers anyway. I am way more scared about every transporter becoming an assault vehicle.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

I really don't think slow movement will/is an issue for our units. Also, it wouldn't make sense for GW not to turn the Fleet rule into something useful.

And even if Wyches only had 6" movement, so what? Certainly, it isn't the movement that makes them so bad and almost all of our mobility comes fom skimmers anyway. I am way more scared about every transporter becoming an assault vehicle.

Yes, but on the flip side, Poison might hurt them and some of our... less useful things in game atm might become OP

Think about the shredder, you will get D3 wounds for 5pts, or Lances might do D3 also with -2 mod.

Then you have Razorwing and Void Bomber, D6 hit (from missiles) with Lances, The Bomber Lance Blasts might be something crazy like D3 -3 mods


Or how about Haywire? That might have a keyword (Deals D6 damage to Tanks instead of 1)

Or even Dis Cannons, assault 3 -1 mod.

Not saying all these are correct, just giving some examples.

I am not looking forwards to all of Eladrith being lumped into one book.  What happens to the Lore?  Do they try to write one coherent string of events that entails all four major groupings?  Do they write three separate codices and release it in one cover?  What happens to our cover art?

Or is everything prior to GS (read: BS) dropped and we get left with only Ynnari and all the hopelessly written lore that that entails?

Will we get an answer on the Drazhar, Ahra, Karandras "Question"?  If so, what happens to Incubi?  Do they just become another Close Combat Oriented Aspect in the Elites Slot alongside Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees?
How will the lore section handle these factions working alongside each other?  To be recognised as a Klaivex you have to kill an Exarch and turn their Soulstone into an instrument of eternal torture.

What happens to Commoragh?  It was left in a pretty crap state after GS2 (read: BS mark II), will they retcon it back to total normalcy as they did with the brilliantly written ending of the 2014 Codex?  Will they use this new grouping to erase the ongoings of the Dark City entirely from the lore in an attempt to make the 40K universe more 'kid friendly'?

What happens to our few remaining characters?  What happens to Cegorach's Plan?  What happens to our old characters?  What happens to the Haemonculi?

These are all questions that GW would struggle to fit into one codex, let alone fit alongside the tragedy of the various Craftworlds, the clusterfuck that is the Ynnari and the grim work/ joke that is the Harlequins.

And what is the book going to be called?  "Aeldari" has, since the first time I heard it, sounded like a stupid way of linking back to Aelves.  Eldar would technically work, but it still runs the same problem of the Eladrith Ynneas being shoved to the backburner and left to rot.

Ikol wrote:

I am not looking forwards to all of Eladrith being lumped into one book.  What happens to the Lore?  Do they try to write one coherent string of events that entails all four major groupings?  Do they write three separate codices and release it in one cover?  What happens to our cover art?

Or is everything prior to GS (read: BS) dropped and we get left with only Ynnari and all the hopelessly written lore that that entails?

Will we get an answer on the Drazhar, Ahra, Karandras "Question"?  If so, what happens to Incubi?  Do they just become another Close Combat Oriented Aspect in the Elites Slot alongside Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees?
How will the lore section handle these factions working alongside each other?  To be recognised as a Klaivex you have to kill an Exarch and turn their Soulstone into an instrument of eternal torture.

What happens to Commoragh?  It was left in a pretty crap state after GS2 (read: BS mark II), will they retcon it back to total normalcy as they did with the brilliantly written ending of the 2014 Codex?  Will they use this new grouping to erase the ongoings of the Dark City entirely from the lore in an attempt to make the 40K universe more 'kid friendly'?

What happens to our few remaining characters?  What happens to Cegorach's Plan?  What happens to our old characters?  What happens to the Haemonculi?

These are all questions that GW would struggle to fit into one codex, let alone fit alongside the tragedy of the various Craftworlds, the clusterfuck that is the Ynnari and the grim work/ joke that is the Harlequins.

And what is the book going to be called?  "Aeldari" has, since the first time I heard it, sounded like a stupid way of linking back to Aelves.  Eldar would technically work, but it still runs the same problem of the Eladrith Ynneas being shoved to the backburner and left to rot.

They said they will still have Codexs, these 4-5 Main books from what I understood was just basic rules not fluff (other than standard fluff for each unit on the unit page and maybe a general 1page fluff per each army).

Cheap rules for each faction or costly codex for each army

I could be wrong, but that was my understanding.

Ikol wrote:

I am not looking forwards to all of Eladrith being lumped into one book.  What happens to the Lore?  Do they try to write one coherent string of events that entails all four major groupings?  Do they write three separate codices and release it in one cover?  What happens to our cover art?

Priority 1 for GW is to get all the rules for every faction available on day 1. That is what these 'all in one' books are for. Apparently, their plan is to do a normal release schedule, with books focusing on specific armies after that. That's probably where your fluff developments will be.

And where the power creep will commence...

Movement is today's topic. Wish they'd taken the time to give a few examples of movement rates though!

Count Adhemar wrote:

And where the power creep will commence...

Which should, in theory, be mitigated by the proposed yearly rules re-balance.

krayd wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

And where the power creep will commence...

Which should, in theory, be mitigated by the proposed yearly rules re-balance.

Its in their best interests to not have power creep, if all models are viable, playable and equal then players will have more reasons to buy all units and play with other armies.

I agree with you, that a year of testing (and from players that know the game extremely well) there wont be much power creep.
You can never remove all of it, but you can limit it.

amishprn86 wrote:

krayd wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

And where the power creep will commence...

Which should, in theory, be mitigated by the proposed yearly rules re-balance.

Its in their best interests to not have power creep, if all models are viable, playable and equal then players will have more reasons to buy all units and play with other armies.

I agree with you, that a year of testing (and from players that know the game extremely well) there wont be much power creep.
You can never remove all of it, but you can limit it.

Balancing will always be an iterative process. No matter how many testing you did before you released a game, there will always be aspects that come up once the game is released.

If you want to do serious balancing you need to have +90% of the rules at one place. Not only can you actually start balancing the game as a whole without printing new physical hard copies for every faction, but also know the stats of your opponents. This must also include the formations.
Best place for this would be online, but I can also see a big "statistics reference book" working out that is released every year.

The Codices could become faction-specific campaign books with lots of fluff and feature the rest of the 10% of the rules like unique Warlord traits.


But I don't really see this happening.
Of course, pretty much everything is better than what we have right now.

amishprn86 wrote:

Its in their best interests to not have power creep, if all models are viable, playable and equal then players will have more reasons to buy all units and play with other armies.

I don't necessarily agree with this. We have 2 major player archetypes:

1. The competitive player: The competitive player regularly attends tournaments and builds armies designed to win. With power creep, this type of player is forced to constantly evolve his collection to take advantage of, or at least cope with whatever the latest flavor of the month super combo is.

2. The fluff bunny: The fluff bunny enjoys 40k primarily for the setting and/or the models themselves. This type of player doesn't really have much motivation to assemble the "strongest" army based on the latest new powerz whether power creep exists or not. They will generally build their collection based on what they think sounds/looks cool. Even in the absence of power creep, these players generally do not enjoy playing against competitive players.

So as you can see, power creep drives sales for competitive players, and fluffy players are just going to buy what looks/sounds cool either way, regardless of rules, so there is very little incentive from a business standpoint to eliminate power creep.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Its in their best interests to not have power creep, if all models are viable, playable and equal then players will have more reasons to buy all units and play with other armies.

I don't necessarily agree with this. We have 2 major player archetypes:

1. The competitive player: The competitive player regularly attends tournaments and builds armies designed to win. With power creep, this type of player is forced to constantly evolve his collection to take advantage of, or at least cope with whatever the latest flavor of the month super combo is.

2. The fluff bunny: The fluff bunny enjoys 40k primarily for the setting and/or the models themselves. This type of player doesn't really have much motivation to assemble the "strongest" army based on the latest new powerz whether power creep exists or not. They will generally build their collection based on what they think sounds/looks cool. Even in the absence of power creep, these players generally do not enjoy playing against competitive players.

So as you can see, power creep drives sales for competitive players, and fluffy players are just going to buy what looks/sounds cool either way, regardless of rules, so there is very little incentive from a business standpoint to eliminate power creep.

Or it doesnt, I know of some that only have a small collection of 6-7k points total (small for 10yrs+ players) and doesnt buy new models but insteads just borrows other for tournaments.

Not everyone buys them, and many also buy off ebay or trade, its the fanboys and fluff players that buys the most. (from what i've seen)

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Its in their best interests to not have power creep, if all models are viable, playable and equal then players will have more reasons to buy all units and play with other armies.

I don't necessarily agree with this. We have 2 major player archetypes:

1. The competitive player: The competitive player regularly attends tournaments and builds armies designed to win. With power creep, this type of player is forced to constantly evolve his collection to take advantage of, or at least cope with whatever the latest flavor of the month super combo is.

2. The fluff bunny: The fluff bunny enjoys 40k primarily for the setting and/or the models themselves. This type of player doesn't really have much motivation to assemble the "strongest" army based on the latest new powerz whether power creep exists or not. They will generally build their collection based on what they think sounds/looks cool. Even in the absence of power creep, these players generally do not enjoy playing against competitive players.

So as you can see, power creep drives sales for competitive players, and fluffy players are just going to buy what looks/sounds cool either way, regardless of rules, so there is very little incentive from a business standpoint to eliminate power creep.

I think the main issue with allowing power creep to continue is a long-game one. If it continues unchecked, you'll eventually have a game that's complex and convoluted even beyond the realms of 7th as you have to keep coming up with new ways to avoid having games concluded by turn 2 as people are blown off the board by the masses of high S weaponry or whatever else it is.

That means you either get to the point where you have to do a ground-up reset of the rules which is risky, or do a rolling process of nerfs which is unpopular (and worse when you only get halfway through the process and then ramp things up again, which is what happened with us).

It's in their interest long-term to limit power creep to make it easier to manage the balance of the game, which is something that significantly influences the profitability of the models they sell. Power creep is a short-sighted boom strategy to shift new releases which only works for so long.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

That means you either get to the point where you have to do a ground-up reset of the rules which is risky, or do a rolling process of nerfs which is unpopular (and worse when you only get halfway through the process and then ramp things up again, which is what happened with us).

History has shown that it's not that risky to reset the rules. GW has released a new version of the rules every 3 years on average, and several of those have been big-time remakes of the rules. Only a couple have been small incremental changes.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Power creep is a short-sighted boom strategy to shift new releases which only works for so long.

Yet it's been working for them for 30 years. Power creep, power creep, power creep, edition reset, rinse and repeat. It's what GW does, and I doubt that will change much since it has worked so well for them so far. I suspect they'll have to reach the brink of failure before changing course.