8th Edition: Zeal Rising

[d3m01iti0n]

I'm not suggesting spam per se, just a meme tailored to each of their posts. I'll go figure out how to make em...

[JAG Templar]

Naftka already confirmed​ most of it it's fake.

Yeah, I'm glad the correction came out so quickly.

[Marshal Arthur]

I don't know about that last point.

 

FIrst because if transports are so good everyone will have them, and second because I doubt our metal boxes can outmanoeuvre eldar vehicles.

As far as the Eldar comment I mostly just wanted to throw out another example of killing xenos to match the Tau, I realize it was a poor example since maneuverability and speed is a big part of the Eldar fluff and strategy. That said even if transports are great and everyone uses them we at least won't be relying on long range firepower. So where our transports will protect our infantry until its time to chainsaw some xenos/heretics/daemons, the transports for a shooty army will just restrict the amount of fire going out at any given time.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Sounds like #Crusade_Formation_Please all over again...

[Sete]

Eh I'll kindly ask for an Aquilla Commander for Custodes.

Won't insist on it tho.

Probably won't play until 8th edition hits.

[Sete]

Ah well they deleted my post.

[Cap'm Heckus]

Fingers crossed for the return of initiate/neophyte combined bike squads. I miss those.

[Blues Light]

Today's update: Formations are gone across the board! 

[Cap'm Heckus]

I see that as a "plus". Was not a fan.

[BitsHammer]

I see that as a "plus". Was not a fan.

Not many were. It reeked of GW trying to go whaling (extract the maximum profit from the fewest customers, a trick used by freemium mobile games) and frankly did nothing for the game we couldn't use unbound or FOCs to match (save for putting broken rules all over the place).

[Knight of the Raven]

I liked Angels of Death's hunting force myself, both for the lore and giving my beloved bikers a fluffy rule, but yeah, more free bonuses is not a good way to achieve balance.

 

(I say "more" because space marines already have chapter tactics and their traitorous equivalents when there's no such thing for any other faction.)

[robofish7591]

I kind of liked the concept of formations, but the execution was pretty bad.  The extra rules ranged anywhere from super situational to horribly OP with no rhyme or reason.  Plus, they were distributed among armies poorly.  Sisters of Battle got "updated" and still didn't even get a formation.  I originally was for just giving formations a points value... but, I think getting rid of them completely is a better decision.

[Canadian_F_H]

Idk... I liked the alternate FOCs that were used for different mission types in 3rd edition. Formations were vaguely an attempt to allow interesting alternatives to CAD but unbalanced rules really made a mess of things.

[Knight of the Raven]

I've never played the different missions from that edition since I didn't have an actual army before 5th Edition at oldest and I still miss them. They had character.

I remember more about pistols being able to shoot twice than about them though.

[Jacques Corbin]

Ok, so how awesome are Ironclads going to be in BT armies in 8th? So much more survivable, with 8 wounds. I hope you can still run them in units of 3. What if Techmarines are allowed to join them now?

 

How about Vindicators in 8th? Multiple S10 hits will be brutal. No more scatter, so firing "danger close" to your infantry is no longer an issue.

[T-Rock]

Yes to both of those things. If the rumors are true that we'll be able to assault out of drop pods, they will be straight up nasty. 

 

Going off of that, what are people's thoughts on the reworked Helbrecht, Grimaldus, and Emperor's Champion rules/statline? I considered making a new thread where we could speculate more specifically, but it fits here. What do you all think? 

[The Spanish Inquisitor]

Speculation of course, but i can already see the sword of the Emperor's champion make D3 damage per hit. 

Also 2+ to hit, and 2+ to wound. a wound of 6 making more damages. 

[Brother Christopher]

I feel that this is slightly off-topic, but only slightly. Here's some of my 'wishlisting': I would like to see regular units, like our Crusader Squads, being able to do more damage. I never've been into Unique Characters, and prefered smaller engagement of regular forces. I'm afraid I simply want my lists from 5th Edition to work again: three choppy Crusader Squads, an Emperor's Champion, a squad of Assault Terminators in a LRC, supported by some tanks or speeders.

 

The Emperor's Champion surely deserve to have an awesome sword and equally impressive duelling skills. I could also digest us being more 'religious' (I don't see how GW will back out from this change in our background) if it means we get some vows back (or I should say OUR VOWS!).

 

I don't remember if this was something official or just speculation, but I've read that changes are to be made with heavy weapons. It would be cool if they decide to allow Marines charge at least after firing bolters. I always found mixed botler and cc Crusader Squads very fluffy, but quite ineffective for actual use in a game (as I've been particularly fond of the bit of fluff from C:BT about the ad hoc structure of crusades and squads and their members' unique identities, as opposed to Codex Astatres imposed structures).

 

But again, I learnt to keep my expectations low, after all the blows we suffered over the years. Having said that, the new edition shapes to be fun, so I'm all positive (minus the uncertainty with the new Marines)... albeit in a very reserved way.

 

EDIT: With the new bit of news out, if our Crusader squads remain as they are, we'll probably be seeing a lot of small specialist squads. Also, it seems that 'devastator squads' will be quite deadly.

 

"...in the new Warhammer 40,000, models in a squad can fire at different targets. So, this means your Tactical Squad can have your boys with bolters deal with that onrushing Hormagaunt horde, while the flamer bathes a nearby Lictor in prometheum fire, and the squad’s krak missile takes an opportunistic pop-shot at that onrushing Carnifex – just as you always imagined they should!" (quote from the New Warhammer 40,000: Infantry article).

[Acebaur]

www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

 

Infantry can split fire on a per model basis! That is awesome, very happy to see that change.

[Marshal Mattias]

Wow, that's an exciting change! Melta guns in crusader squads might be a potent choice again? Is the Templar MSU about to become even more powerful? Now that there is talk of heavy weapons firing on the move, and at separate targets?! Exciting times indeed...

[Marshal Wolfhart]

How should a heavy weapon fire on the move in a crusader squad, when there is the power weapon using up that equipment slot?

More seriously though, this might just coutnerbalance the rumored CC buffs like charging from all vehicles (even Droppods), as the shooty armies still need something to challenge our ZEAL. This gets me more excited for 8th every day!

[Metic]

I'm just happy for that wound chart! That makes marines Extremely durable compared to what they have been historically.

[Marshal_Roujakis]

I'm just happy for that wound chart! That makes marines Extremely durable compared to what they have been historically.

 

Exactly how?

It should still be relatively the same as it is now... the biggest improvement being the AP modifiers will be used instead of just flat out using Cover Saves when getting shot by high AP weaponry... Say getting shot by another Marine for example... we know that AP for bolters is - so still a 4+ another 4+ then a 3+... with just a bump up to 2+ if behind decent cover...

more survivable if behind cover, but otherwise nothing really has changed...

 

And... based on the new SvsT chart, it would actually be a lot easier to wound a Dreadnought out of cover... 3+ to Hit, 5+ to Wound (toughness 7) and 3+ save... which will be a lot easier to pull off than wounding a Centurion... 2+... the Saves will be the tipping point of games in 8th edition, with majority of players relying more on heavier armor for that better modifiers if behind cover or against high AP weapons...

 

for short, Marines... Marines for days... the tougher the Saves the better...

 

Also, I wish that they'd make an AP modifier value based on maybe the Str and Toughness of the models too... or just maybe add an AP to Bolters... in their new weapons profile, a Bolter is just as powerful as an Ork shoota... which it shouldn't... Bolters should have more penetrating power in comparison... maybe just make it so that Str > Toughness = AP+1

and Str < Toughness = AP-1 and if Str == 2x Toughness = AP+2 or Str == Toughness/2 = AP-2

just so that things that are tough to kill are REALLY tough to kill... and that things that are easy to kill, are REALLY easy to kill... Lascannons and Meltaguns will strip off Armour from most of infantry models... against a Marine, AP-3 then add a further 2 would reduce save to nothing even if behind some cover... and firing bolters at Guradsmen would force them to take Sv at 6+ instead of 5+ and Orks to still Sv on 6+ to denote their enhanced physiology even against high piercing weaponry... just a thought though and it would also make chainswords or higher strength infantry be better at killing lesser troops in melee...

 

Maybe there's still time to make this a suggestion...

[Acebaur]

Marines are more durable because you now need S8 to wound them on a 2+ instead of S6, combined with the new AP system and you have marines tougher against things like plasma and equivalent

[redmapa]

Melee weapons will probably have an AP modifier value based on S vs T.