8th edition

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

Re: 8th edition

Post#31 » Mar 25 2017 08:57

I hope we don't get a static subtraction on armor save rolls as the new AP system. Because honestly, a weapon that used to be AP6 or AP5 shouldn't have *any* effect on 2+ armor. Whereas, as I mentioned earlier, an AP3 weapon should be able to do something against 2+ armor, but ideally not reduce it to 6+ armor.

Jefffar wrote:Being able to attack first is actually pretty huge for Tau. The WS chart isn't kind to us, but our Initiative Stat is the killer in combat, we generally only go after the other guys have decimated our unit.

I disagree, the WS chart is very kind to us. Because nobody ever has a better chance than 3+ to hit us, and we never have a worse chance than 5+. Aun'va only needs 5+ to hit Deathleaper, Be'lakor, Skarbrand or a Solitaire which is more than a little ridiculous.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2211

Re: 8th edition

Post#32 » Mar 25 2017 10:14

I think you will get disappointed then, Unicornsilovethem. Doesn't seem like the direction GW is going...and i'm totally fine with that tbh. ^^

And yeah the WS table is very kind to us. What really breaks our neck in close combat though is not having any weapon with AP and low amount of attacks on top of having low Initiative and that only one of those will change in 8th. :P

User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

Re: 8th edition

Post#33 » Mar 25 2017 01:09

You don't find it the least bit silly that a weapon which just has enough penetration power to bypass a Fire Warrior's combat armor, also degrades the armor of a Riptide to be no more effective than that of a Pathfinder?

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Posts: 261

Re: 8th edition

Post#34 » Mar 25 2017 02:17

Well, that's why we think the modifier won't ever be better than -3 and that would be on plasma/melta weapons. Also I think Riptide should be represented as a walker vehicle, if you swap a riptide for a termie, your analogy doesn't seem so unrealistic.

User avatar
Neffarious
Shas
Posts: 17

Re: 8th edition

Post#35 » Mar 25 2017 04:40

Panzer wrote: What really breaks our neck in close combat though is not having any weapon with AP and low amount of attacks on top of having low Initiative and that only one of those will change in 8th. :P


FUSION BLADES!!!!!
:D You can't spell slaughter without laughter :D

User avatar
TauMan
Shas'Ui
Posts: 523
Contact:

Re: 8th edition

Post#36 » Mar 25 2017 06:43

Sooo thankful I never purchased the rule book for 7th edition! (Still want my money back for 6th edition!). Have no idea if this is going to be good or bad, as my worry is how badly the fluff will get mangled.

Neffarious wrote:FUSION BLADES!!!!!

Uh, um...Fusion Blades: The willing suspension of disbelief has been revoked! (And my army is a Farsight army!)

TauMan
PS Plasma cutters have been part of the lore of WH40k since at least 2nd edition. Squats had plasma cutters as mining tools (no rule set - just fluff). So why didn't we get a Plasma Rifle/Plasma Cutter weapon option. STR-10 AP-1 anybody? TM
Viro’los gu brath!
N.Y.A.B.X.T.T.

User avatar
Neffarious
Shas
Posts: 17

Re: 8th edition

Post#37 » Mar 25 2017 09:49

TauMan wrote: So why didn't we get a Plasma Rifle/Plasma Cutter weapon option. STR-10 AP-1 anybody? TM


Because we got ...

FUSION BLADES!!!!! They're Str 8 Ap 1 Armorbane and blind with a 1/6 chance to crap out for the rest of the game!!!!! Awesome!!!!!

And now I will require you to reinstate the suspension of disbelief you so rudely revoked.

From the moment I saw Commander Farsight brandishing the Dawnblade, I dreamed about having twin beam swords on my custom Mobile-Suit Crisis-Suit.

My group and I enjoy "forging a narrative" more than just building a list and rolling the dice. For us it is telling stories and making up characters to fuel our imagination that keep us engaged in the hobby. Our games are more like sessions of a tabletop RPG than a wargame; they are part of an ever-growing story told by the players set against the backdrop of 40K.

I made a fusion blade commander (with a backstory I will consider submitting to your Seeds of Life project) who bravely faced down a Knight Titan, so ... it CAN be done, and I appreciate that GW has rewarded him for his valiant effort by making it easier for him to continue doing so. Although that begs the question ... will Thunder-hammers and Power-fists now strike first as well? That's a scary thought.

Anyway, I am most excited about the Army Selection bonuses from the Command Points system. I don't know what they will be, and I hope it's not just a half-baked attempt to get more people to buy Codexes so they can mine them for fluff induced buffs to their armies; but I like the idea of fluffy crunch ... or is that crunchy fluff?

I am curious about the new proposed Morale/Leadership rules. While I embrace the minimization of Morale Saves and rolls to rally, a 1D6 + casualties > Leadership that causes you to take additional losses seems harsh.
:D You can't spell slaughter without laughter :D

User avatar
Jefffar
Shas'Vre
Posts: 1001

Re: 8th edition

Post#38 » Mar 25 2017 10:58

I would expect that Unweildy will have some sort of negative effect on the timing of the strike, though when, they will get to strike is unpredictable with certainty at this stage.

User avatar
Kakapo42
Shas'Vre
Posts: 881

Re: 8th edition

Post#39 » Mar 25 2017 11:19

So it begins...

I can't really say I'm looking forward to all this, not least because I've only just started getting back into 40k in strength and don't really fancy the prospect of having to get an entirely new set of rules all over again (I'm already sitting on four of them as it is). I only pray that I can get at least one game of 7th in before it's too late so that I can at least break my curse of never getting to game with the codexes I get.

I think what has me most concerned about the current proposed ruleset is the planned changes to morale. While I will readily admit that the current morale rules are far from perfect, I think that all things considered they do a pretty good job of capturing what they reflect. Most importantly of all though, in my eyes, is that under the current system units that have had their morale broken and are falling back are recoverable losses - until they reach the edge of the board or an enemy unit you can still bring them back into the fight by rallying them. This opens up a much needed extra tactical dimension to the game, whether it's on the side that owns the falling back unit (how to plan around the falling back unit, taking the chance that it will recover into consideration and so on) or the side opposing it (whether or not to finish off the falling back unit before it can recover or to focus on other targets instead). Whether or not to try just making an enemy unit fall back or focus on its complete destruction also presents interesting considerations, on paper at least. The new system, on the other hand, feels too arbitrary for my liking - as anyone whose had their crisis suits or Tyranid Warriors ID'd by a barrage of krak missiles (or anyone whose been on the receiving end of a lot of super-heavy units in a normal game) can tell you, it's rarely if ever fun to just loose models entirely with no chance of stopping it whatsoever.

Besides, who doesn't love a good rousing moment when the battered remnants get their act together and turn around to jump back in the fight to end up triumphing in the end? It's a classic Hollywood staple (often paired with a good rousing speech and some well-timed orchestral swelling in the background score) for a reason.

The other changes don't really thrill me either. It's strange, but while I loved ASMs and movement rates in Warhammer Fantasy, I don't really want them in 40k. It probably doesn't help that I generally don't like homogeneity in my tabletop rules - the more different tabletop game systems are from one another the better, as far as I'm concerned.

If there's a silver lining to it, then perhaps it will be the window for one of my more diabolical ambitious plans...

TauMan wrote:PS Plasma cutters have been part of the lore of WH40k since at least 2nd edition. Squats had plasma cutters as mining tools (no rule set - just fluff). So why didn't we get a Plasma Rifle/Plasma Cutter weapon option. STR-10 AP-1 anybody? TM


I actually dimly recall seeing somewhere on here some hypothetical rules for an Earth Caste engineering suit (sort of like a cross between a crisis suit and the power-loader from Aliens I imagine) as part of a special scenario, and it featured as part of its equipment loadout a plasma cutter (or possibly a fusion cutter, some sort of high-tech space blowtorch at any rate) which acted as a power weapon and had special scenario rules for cutting through debris piles. It also featured a fire extinguisher that acted as an S1 flamer with special scenario rules for putting out fires. Unfortunately I can't for the life of me remember what thread it was in but if you dig around a bit you might still be able to find it.
A Shas and a Kor walk into a bar...
Naked Metal

TauMinded
Shas'Saal
Posts: 30

Re: 8th edition

Post#40 » Mar 26 2017 12:19

Honestly Calmsword, getting me excited with comments like this:

"More conversations indicate that there is going to be updates to codexes but rewrites will be on the way with a big push for the xenos factions after chaos is done (imperials have a few more as well) but that campaign books (which have been massively successful) will be the source of multiple updates for factions more often. "

My (only)other army is Nids & I would really appreciate some love from GW for them. Would like to divert from Flyrant spam and still be competitive for once.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests