8e - Infantry is up

Ikol wrote:

You've postulated an "unliving" rule for vehicles quite a few times now (and I think it was suggested that Necrons and Rubric Marines should gain it as well ).

Yeah, that's because "unliving" is already a keyword they're using in the new shadow war: armageddon, and it basically works that way for poison in that 40k minigame. Since GW seems to be using other games as a testing ground for rules they're implementing in 40k, it stands to reason that such a system would make the transition to 8th edition absent any public outcry of it not working well for some reason.

the poison and unliving rule I agree with, it makes sense.
Why the -2 on t for the dark lance and not just it treats all t=x+ as t=x, that seems to be more in line with the current rules? Or something along the lines of a 6 to wound causes extra wounds? Something where at some point extra defenses (probably thoughness maybe wounds) just won't help much anymore against the lance instead of making it better at killing vehicles, make it better at killing the big defensive vehicles.

It doesn't matter what weapon you use. Just that you have them available, cheap and plentiful.

If a faction cannot reliably strip dozens of wounds off big guys and vehicles every turn they will not be able to compete in 8th.

But the same goes for 7th

At least now even if it will be hard, you can always deal some damage even if you might struggle. Last tuesday I saw the start of a game between a full mech imperial guard and a new Tau player (which have realatively crap of high str shooting). After 2 rounds most of the big tau weapons were gone and he had barely any options left to destroy all those av12/14 vehicles, I don't think he could damage the 14 front armour anymore of half of the tanks and only had a few options left to damage the av12 front and side armour of the other tanks.
At least in 8th he has a chance to do something even if he needs 180 hits to kill it.
I think that s6+ weapons stay strong since they will rarely need a 6+ to wound and will wound most things on a 3+. But it also means that a simple lasgun might become more cost effective to destroy a t11 massive tank than all those s5 shots.

Everyone is assuming what poison or lance weapons will do.
We are not sure either of those things are even going to be in the new edition. It was not that long ago when our splinter weapons were str 4 rapid fire.

12 pages of rules will mean some things we are used to will no longer be a part of the game.
Just sayin.

Skulnbonz wrote:

Everyone is assuming what poison or lance weapons will do.
We are not sure either of those things are even going to be in the new edition. It was not that long ago when our splinter weapons were str 4 rapid fire.

12 pages of rules will mean some things we are used to will no longer be a part of the game.
Just sayin.

Yes, but also just going farther with what your saying, they still might be a thing, who knows, 5 of those pages might be Keywords lol.

Skulnbonz wrote:

Everyone is assuming what poison or lance weapons will do.
We are not sure either of those things are even going to be in the new edition. It was not that long ago when our splinter weapons were str 4 rapid fire.

12 pages of rules will mean some things we are used to will no longer be a part of the game.
Just sayin.

S3 actually, it was the SPlinter Cannon that was S4. And it was even less long ago that Splinter Weapons didn't have a S value at all.

|Meavar wrote:

the poison and unliving rule I agree with, it makes sense.
Why the -2 on t for the dark lance and not just it treats all t=x+ as t=x, that seems to be more in line with the current rules?

No, because currently, the lance rule only lowers AV in excess of 12 to a minimum of 12. That's why I worded it that way, because wording it that way would essentially make it do the same thing it does right now, which is make dark lances a mediocre weapon against all vehicles(ie "unliving"), while not making it as strong as things like a lascannon vs. tough LIVING things.

Basically exactly as it is right now.

Skulnbonz wrote:

12 pages of rules

I've heard people mention this a couple times now. Where did we find out the rules were 12 pages?

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

|Meavar wrote:

the poison and unliving rule I agree with, it makes sense.
Why the -2 on t for the dark lance and not just it treats all t=x+ as t=x, that seems to be more in line with the current rules?

No, because currently, the lance rule only lowers AV in excess of 12 to a minimum of 12. That's why I worded it that way, because wording it that way would essentially make it do the same thing it does right now, which is make dark lances a mediocre weapon against all vehicles(ie "unliving"), while not making it as strong as things like a lascannon vs. tough LIVING things.

Basically exactly as it is right now.

Skulnbonz wrote:

12 pages of rules

I've heard people mention this a couple times now. Where did we find out the rules were 12 pages?

They said in a facebook comment.

amishprn86 wrote:

They said in a facebook comment.

I thought it was in the "Facebook live" event with the developers.

I also remember reading 12 pages of rules from a GW source somewhere. Although maybe I am misremembering but it doesn't feel that way.

Yes, Pete Foley (head of the rules writing team) has said several times the core rules will be 12 pages, but this wont include the "3 ways to play" rules or the FOC's.

Imateria wrote:

Yes, Pete Foley (head of the rules writing team) has said several times the core rules will be 12 pages, but this wont include the "3 ways to play" rules or the FOC's.

Good, then my brain is still functioning at acceptable levels.