Warhammer 40K Tabletop XXIX: Ro, Ro, Ro Your Boute

[Forum Explorer]

What I find interesting is that Space Marines move 6 inches. That's likely to be the default so will Eldar/Genestealers be going 8? Hormogaunts 9? That'll be a pretty big change in of itself.

I'm also very curious what the WS modifiers will be. You can guess what the shooting one's might be, but WS is harder.

[Bobby Baratheon]

Hmm, okaaayy...

Sounds good....

Wait.....

Orks. The army you are describing is called orks.

Well there would have to be *some* distinction The radiation effects could be interesting, and I think rak-gol would be a little quicker and maybe a little less numerous than orks, with less lolrandom stuff and maybe more psychology effects.

Course, this is all pointless internet speculation. I'll eat a boot if they actually released rak'gol.

[Bobby Baratheon]

Wait no D weapons? That fills me with an inexpressable joy for some reason.

EDIT: Whoops, sorry about the double post.

[Requizen]

What I find interesting is that Space Marines move 6 inches. That's likely to be the default so will Eldar/Genestealers be going 8? Hormogaunts 9? That'll be a pretty big change in of itself.

I'm also very curious what the WS modifiers will be. You can guess what the shooting one's might be, but WS is harder.

The "basic" Infantry statline (6" move, S4 T4) was always built around Space Marines, so it's not surprising that they haven't changed much. I would imagine regular Humans would be around 4" or 5", and yeah more speedy things in the 8" zone.

[Grim Portent]

That dreadnought statline and the mention of S/T above 10 sounds promising.

Not sure how I feel about fixed to hit values, WS at least was a pain to keep track of when there were lots of different values on the board, and it was essentially pointless to have it above 5, but I can't think of how they'll translate WS above 4 into the new system.

[Adrastos42]

I suspect having the WS and BS target numbers in the stats were mainly done to speed things up, if a 1,500 pts game is supposed to take 90 minutes now. As for how high WS will be represented, perhaps with special rules either making them harder to hit, or allowing them to ignore negative to-hit modifiers affecting them?

I'll admit to being slightly sad about terminators not going back to 3+ on 2D6, though a second wound is certainly nice.

[Renegade Paladin]

-NO DESTROYER WEAPONS. YUSSS.

Considering they're moving big weapons to doing multiple wounds instead of having templates, I've got five Internets that say this is a cop-out and the current Destroyer weapons will still do boatloads of wounds and just not need a special rule for it, since doing multiple wounds will be a standard thing.

[Requizen]

Considering they're moving big weapons to doing multiple wounds instead of having templates, I've got five Internets that say this is a cop-out and the current Destroyer weapons will still do boatloads of wounds and just not need a special rule for it, since doing multiple wounds will be a standard thing.

While I fully expect there to be things that do un-savable wounds, I doubt in any way that there will be anything that does d6+6 wounds with no saves allowed of any kind. Especially since they playtested with worldwide tournament organizers and high-ranking players, who hated that.

[Drasius]

I suspect having the WS and BS target numbers in the stats were mainly done to speed things up, if a 1,500 pts game is supposed to take 90 minutes now. As for how high WS will be represented, perhaps with special rules either making them harder to hit, or allowing them to ignore negative to-hit modifiers affecting them?

I'll admit to being slightly sad about terminators not going back to 3+ on 2D6, though a second wound is certainly nice.

Please go roll a single 50 man squad of guardsmen (with specials) FRF, SRF'ing a squad of termies and then make their saves, then come back and tell us what a great idea it would be.

Also, interesting that there's no invulnerable saves mentioned in the profile notes. Maybe a special rule for it, or maybe it's a special rule to ignore a certain amount of the new AP value? Either way, nice that termies are a touch slower than tacs, hopefully it'll be a nice balance against that 2nd wound but in all honesty, if they stay at the same'ish price point, they desperately needed that 2nd wound to be even remotely relevant. Either way, looking forward to seeing how it all pans out.

[Blackhawk748]

-No shooting into and out of combat (wonder if this will change with AoS as well...)
-NO DESTROYER WEAPONS. YUSSS.

Oh thank Gork and Mork, i was really concerned about that first one, the second is a wonderful bonus.

Im not super happy about the fixed To Hit thing, but at least its not a fixed to wound, cuz that is just silly.

[Theodoric]

I'm guessing invulnerable saves will work as a equipment-derived special rule, saying that a unit's 'save' cannot be reduced further than to X. (Having it as 'cannot be reduced by more than X seems like too much math)

The net result will be pretty much the same as the current system, except it works better with having just a single 'save' stat.

[LeSwordfish]

Lets be real - Weapon Skill was practically irrelevant anyway. Removing one of the more complex tables from the game is all good to me.

[Forum Explorer]

Lets be real - Weapon Skill was practically irrelevant anyway. Removing one of the more complex tables from the game is all good to me.

Complex?

The thing had 3 results. 3+, 4+, and 5+. It was pretty easy to tell what was what.

Honestly, I'm just glad that the Avatar is going to be able to hit on 2+ in close combat now. That always drove me up the wall.

[Theodoric]

Lets be real - Weapon Skill was practically irrelevant anyway. Removing one of the more complex tables from the game is all good to me.

Yeah, I'm not mourning its absence. I'm glad I never bothered to memorise that table, really.

[LeSwordfish]

Complex?

The thing had 3 results. 3+, 4+, and 5+. It was pretty easy to tell what was what.

Honestly, I'm just glad that the Avatar is going to be able to hit on 2+ in close combat now. That always drove me up the wall.

The barriers between those three results were different, however, and even after roughly ten years of playing I haven't memorised it. (Is it more than double to get a 3+? or is it only double? Or is that to force your opponent to a 5+?) Not saying it's super complicated, but the ratio of work to value of it was considerably less than, say, the to-wound chart. Given that we already have special rules for being super good in close combat (Wyches, various duellists) I don't see why we shouldn't just use them and save ourselves all the hassle.

[Forum Explorer]

The barriers between those three results were different, however, and even after roughly ten years of playing I haven't memorised it. (Is it more than double to get a 3+? or is it only double? Or is that to force your opponent to a 5+?) Not saying it's super complicated, but the ratio of work to value of it was considerably less than, say, the to-wound chart. Given that we already have special rules for being super good in close combat (Wyches, various duellists) I don't see why we shouldn't just use them and save ourselves all the hassle.

If you are higher then your opponent you hit on a 3+

If you are lower or equal to your opponent you hit on a 4+

If and only if they double your WS+1 you hit on a 5+. This result almost never comes up unless you are Tau.

That's less complex then the wound table, if anything.

[Drasius]

Im not super happy about the fixed To Hit thing, but at least its not a fixed to wound, cuz that is just silly.

I assume you're only refering to WS, since BS has effectively been a flat to-hit roll since ... 3rd? when they removed cover modifiers to hit.

The barriers between those three results were different, however, and even after roughly ten years of playing I haven't memorised it. (Is it more than double to get a 3+? or is it only double? Or is that to force your opponent to a 5+?) Not saying it's super complicated, but the ratio of work to value of it was considerably less than, say, the to-wound chart. Given that we already have special rules for being super good in close combat (Wyches, various duellists) I don't see why we shouldn't just use them and save ourselves all the hassle.

If you are higher then your opponent you hit on a 3+

If you are lower or equal to your opponent you hit on a 4+

If and only if they double your WS+1 you hit on a 5+. This result almost never comes up unless you are Tau.

That's less complex then the wound table, if anything.

This. It only ever comes up in a very, very small handful of situations;
WS1 vs WS3+ - Blinded opponents (or ECPA) vs almost anyone who's not tau. Technically vehicles hitting back in combat, but since they don't, it never comes up.
WS2 vs WS5+ - Tau vs most combat characters, Khorne Berserkers, any Khorne Daemon, Incubi, Tyranid Warriors, Lictors, Genestealers, Trygon, Paladins, NDK's, Harlequins and any of the Aspect Hosts that feel like it.
WS3 vs WS7+ - GEQ vs most specialised combat characters (ie Kharn, Drazhar, Assassins, Jain Zar etc)
WS4 vs WS9+ - MEQ vs Daemons Princes, Lillith, 'Thirster, KoS, Avatar, Swarmlord, Solitaire

There's also the various canticles or doctrines that skitarii or admech can use (can never remember which one) that boost their WS that they never use because boosting BS is better while taking a penalty to WS is meaningless. Everything else is 3's or 4's

[Blackhawk748]

I assume you're only refering to WS, since BS has effectively been a flat to-hit roll since ... 3rd? when they removed cover modifiers to hit.

Correect. Fixed To Hits for melee is justifiable. Fixed To Wounds really isnt. Mostly cuz i keep picturing a Bloodthirster punching a C'Tan shard and it wounds on the same roll as if it had punched a grot, and that is just ridiculous.

[Eldan]

Eeeer. what?

Where did the silly idea that "seraphim" transulates to "burning ones" come from?

Only someone with a poor grip of hebrew will confused seraph, that is a rank of an angel, and soreph, that means "burning".

I'd wager someone mis-transulated at some point that it has something to do with burning and the error lived on.

Really? Because that is in every encyclopedia Ive ever seen.

[Cheesegear]

Also, interesting that there's no invulnerable saves mentioned in the profile notes. Maybe a special rule for it, or maybe it's a special rule to ignore a certain amount of the new AP value?

I have an enormous feeling that you should maybe read how Invulnerables work in Age of Sigmar. Remember, in 8th Ed., every unit will have their own Special Rules, there are no more USRs. There are two possibilities, and both can exist on the same model at the same time (why Bastilodons one of the best models in the Order roster);
- Ignore Rend/AP (X). Basically the model will always get an Armour Save of some fashion. Especially if it's 2+.
- If the model takes an unsaved Wound, on the roll of X+, the Wound is ignored.

The second is what's known as a 'Ward Save', or sometimes Regeneration. You take your save. Fail. Then you get a second save afterwards. It's not an Invulnerable save, so much as it is FNP or IWND. I imagine that 40K is going to head to Ward Saves. Your 'Invulnerable' is on top of your Armour Save. Which is why things with Wards in Age of Sigmar are so friggin' good.

Correect. Fixed To Hits for melee is justifiable. Fixed To Wounds really isnt. Mostly cuz i keep picturing a Bloodthirster punching a C'Tan shard and it wounds on the same roll as if it had punched a grot, and that is just ridiculous.

I like fixed To Hits, because it means that +/- 1 To Hit, makes more sense. +1 WS makes no difference. World Eaters will tell you all about how WS4 is totally fine on their Chaos Marines for less points than a Khorne Berzerker that are WS5 and are obviously better. Dark Eldar Wyches essentially ignored +1WS when they used to roll it.
Change '+1WS' to '+1 To Hit', and that's next level.

Fixed To Wounds...Sucks. The ur-example in Age of Sigmar is Goblins activating first and stabbing a Bloodthirster to death. Because they can.

[Vaz]

**** that looks like absolute ****.

Been nice playing you, Warhammer, time for me to pack up my stuff and wait 10 years until my kids are old enough to play the game.

[Theodoric]

**** that looks like absolute ****.

Been nice playing you, Warhammer, time for me to pack up my stuff and wait 10 years until my kids are old enough to play the game.

Wait, are you under the impression that 40K will also have fixed 'to Wound'? 'Cause they're keeping Strength and Toughness.

[Vaz]

Wait, are you under the impression that 40K will also have fixed 'to Wound'? 'Cause they're keeping Strength and Toughness.

No. Why would I?

[Cheesegear]

**** that looks like absolute ****.

30K will apparently still be using 7th Ed. rules. Does that help?

[Drasius]

I have an enormous feeling that you should maybe read how Invulnerables work in Age of Sigmar. Remember, in 8th Ed., every unit will have their own Special Rules, there are no more USRs. There are two possibilities, and both can exist on the same model at the same time (why Bastilodons one of the best models in the Order roster);
- Ignore Rend/AP (X). Basically the model will always get an Armour Save of some fashion. Especially if it's 2+.
- If the model takes an unsaved Wound, on the roll of X+, the Wound is ignored.

The second is what's known as a 'Ward Save', or sometimes Regeneration. You take your save. Fail. Then you get a second save afterwards. It's not an Invulnerable save, so much as it is FNP or IWND. I imagine that 40K is going to head to Ward Saves. Your 'Invulnerable' is on top of your Armour Save. Which is why things with Wards in Age of Sigmar are so friggin' good.

I'm well aware of how AoS works, Cairns is probably the strongest adopter of AoS in Australia and there has been maybe half a dozen games of 40k played in the last 3 months while AoS has a game going almost all the time, sometimes taking up both tables, though not anymore since SW:A came out. I might not play beyond the occasional fill-in for a tourney where someone pulls out, but I've got a reasonable understanding of the game.

Ignore rend [x] is handy dependant on what you're fighting, ignore mortal wounds is basically an invulnerable save against AP2 while the rarer ignore wounds (mostly on chaos and death IIRC) is basically FNP. There's one guy up here playing Nurgle who has 3 saves and it frustrates a lot of people, but then there's also a stormcast army eith a bunch of lanterns that heals his own guys on a successful save with stacked save bonii that means he regains wounds on a 4+ save which is also annoying if you don't spam mortal wounds.

**** that looks like absolute ****.

Been nice playing you, Warhammer, time for me to pack up my stuff and wait 10 years until my kids are old enough to play the game.

What in particular are you so disenfranchised about? Personally I see almost nothing but positives so far, so I'm intriuged that someone would have such a negative reaction this early.

30K will apparently still be using 7th Ed. rules. Does that help?

Not for long though, they said that FW was doing up their own rules for 8th, though if they are basically a reprint of 7th or mostly 8th or somewhere inbetween is what we're left to speculate on. Still, if you are super upset with 8th, 30k is probably in the best position to be a legacy ruleset since it's moderately balanced beyond a few examples and we're only missing a few legions rules. Not much help if you wanted to play BA or WS though since their books will almost certainly be released well into 8th with whatever new rules FW comes up with so backwards compatibility might be an issue.

[Cheesegear]

Cairns is probably the strongest adopter of AoS in Australia...

That seems like a weird thing for you to know. Or is it just a feeling you have?

and there has been maybe half a dozen games of 40k played in the last 3 months while AoS has a game going almost all the time, sometimes taking up both tables, though not anymore since SW:A came out.

Same. At the moment, it's all SW:A, all the time. There's been one game of 40K in the last three weeks.

Personally I see almost nothing but positives so far, so I'm intriuged that someone would have such a negative reaction this early.

That's what I thought.

[Eldan]

I have an enormous feeling that you should maybe read how Invulnerables work in Age of Sigmar. Remember, in 8th Ed., every unit will have their own Special Rules, there are no more USRs. There are two possibilities, and both can exist on the same model at the same time (why Bastilodons one of the best models in the Order roster);
- Ignore Rend/AP (X). Basically the model will always get an Armour Save of some fashion. Especially if it's 2+.
- If the model takes an unsaved Wound, on the roll of X+, the Wound is ignored.

The second is what's known as a 'Ward Save', or sometimes Regeneration. You take your save. Fail. Then you get a second save afterwards. It's not an Invulnerable save, so much as it is FNP or IWND. I imagine that 40K is going to head to Ward Saves. Your 'Invulnerable' is on top of your Armour Save. Which is why things with Wards in Age of Sigmar are so friggin' good..

That's just taken from Warhammer Fantasy. Fantasy always has had up to three separate saves (Armor, Ward, Regeneration) that could be taken one after the other. 40k has FnP, Reanimation protocols and IWND that do similar things, but ward saves were always a replacement for armor, not a second save.

Ah, the good old days of three saves on daemons. How I hated them.

[Requizen]

My only worry is, how am I going to juggle both games and not neglect the rest of my life?

[CN the Logos]

Really? Because that is in every encyclopedia Ive ever seen.

Yeah, I even checked the original Hebrew spelling in several places to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass. Going into more detail would probably start to edge into a banned topic, when all I originally wanted to do was talk about a name for lizard people.

...Anyway, does anyone have any advice on Skitarii for SWA? I don't have the rulebook for it yet, but a guy I know has two, and is willing to trade me one for part of a Start Collecting box. My renegade Blood Angels/Knight World could use some dudes to fix their stuff, so I might as well add to my Armies of the Imperium renegade collection.

[Drasius]

That seems like a weird thing for you to know. Or is it just a feeling you have?

Our blackshirt has constantly been quizzed as to how he's managed to make AoS such a success in his store at the staff conference in sydney and has been told that we're third (I think) in AOS sales and considering Cairns is a small fraction the size of the other 2 stores in the top 3, I'd say my statement was accurate. Out of the regulars, not only am I about the only one who doesn't play AoS, I'm reasonably sure I'm also the only one who hasn't brought a new army for it too. We realised the other day when we were playing the new AoS dungeon crawl (which was quite fun, not better or worse than silver tower, just different) that between the regulars, we collectively own every single available army and would be quite close to every model available to AoS too.

IIRC, we were also one of only ~5 stores to get open copies of the new AoS stuff, simply because enough AoS was sold to warrant it. Not sure if that's still a thing, but we always have open copies of AoS, even the new releases while that's verboten for 40k.