To watch the Tyranids vs Ad Mech Battle Report, go here: tinyurl.com/yau... Now that we've played a lot of 8th edition 40k games, I want to talk about what we all love and what we all don't love about it.
I have no idea what the first two commenters are on about The game (play with actual points!) is fairer than ever. Also Play the actual missions. WIll certain armies dominate others in power level games... duh some armies are upgrade central some come with everything, the upgradable armies are always going to be powerful ex: nids, tau and space marines (in general) have a lot of upgrades CSM too now that i think about it.
As an Ork player im happy about Orks, I just wish they had D6 flamethrowers like everyone else instead of the D3 they get. However not being limited to 2 flamethrowers per unit like most units; or the huge point spike, its probably fair.
The last guardsman in my infantry squad this past wednesday shot at a down-to-1-wound Dreadnaught in my first Imperium game this edition and killed it on a lucky roll off, and now he has a name! I love that it can now happen, its like he fired his trusty flash-light and hit the primer of an autocannon round which detonated and blew it up! So much narrative can happen now with this new rule set and I'm glad that they have made the changes they have
Yup, love that sort of stuff. You have to imagine a dreadnought on its last wound is basically on its last legs, with bits falling off and exposed fuel lines and such showing. Pretty dire state to be shot at by anything, let alone a laser gun :P
28:18 I think there are no universal special rules because they want to be able to edit one faction at a time if need be without changing a game wide mechanic.
GIANT ANGRY ROBOT Exactly. Also while yes you can put the USR on the Slate after a while there would be way to much stuff. This is why previously the USRs where in the BRB. And the reason they where removed was to lessen/remove the need to flip through the BRB.
Well having 50+ names for Deep strike is pointless and confusing. There are only a handfull of units in the game that actually have any special rules with their deep stike. Let them have their own rules, and for the rest just use a USR Deep strike. 7th edition had to many USRs but 8th edition could have really benefitted from having a few of them. It takes 2 games then you know what deep strike is for the rest of your life. with the new system i will have to read them every game for months to learn them all. Especially for us with multiple armies. And if they change them in the upcoming codexes, it will be even more confusing.
Mhorgul yeah Getting rid of all USR's was a big mistake lol. The game just feels overly complex now to the point you have no idea what's going when your openly brings his army. Not to mention pages of stratagems we are expected memorise lol. Who ever thought this iteration of the game was a good idea should not be developing 40K or games in general lol...
As an Eldar and T'au player, the AP 4 was devastatingly good against me. complaining it wasn't AP3 was just an indicator of how SM became the standard stat line in most players' minds.
Matt I totally agree with the "bumper cars" statement about vehicles, as an Ork player my Gorka/Morkanauts all have "Big and Stompy" rule, which lets them pretty much walk out of whatever melee they wish. Literally every vehicle should have some varient of this too imo. and I say that as an ork player lol.
I watch the videos off and on, sometimes with months between me watching MWG's content. But I am happy to continue to be a vault member, because I do want to support these awesome guys.
I think the reason the riptide and ghostkeel counts as a monster because it is an extension of the pilot, rather than a crew, or a vehicle pilot twisting levers and such. and if a riptide was a vehicle, what's to stop a crisis suit or a stealth suit from being one.
It's been 1/2 year now, I would say AP is so well done that I think invuln save is quite lacking now. I prefer something along the line of: 1) If you receive DMG more than 1, power shield absorbs up to 10 wounds every turn. 2) Agile reflex: Every turn you can throw 10D6. On 3+, you can ignore selected wound roll. 3) Ramshackle: Throw D6 for every wound roll, on 4+ gain 1 wound, on 6 ignore it. 4) Battle rage: This turn if you encountered melee attack, starting this turn & next turn, roll D6 for every dmg1 wound roll, on 4+ ignore it. 5) Monstrosity: Every time you lose more than 2 wounds, you gain 1 wound 6) fervent belief: Every time you lose 2 wounds, you gain 1T up to T9. Set a few core special invuln save rules, then scaling accord to the need of a model. No one owns absolute invulnerable save & everyone gets their own special save accordingly to fluff.
Speaking of big models charging models on top floors, the battlereports in the new White Dwarf have just that. A knight charge a group of SM on high ground, and they realize it shouldn't be possible. They "homeruled" that the knight can indeed charge and attack but not with their feets. Basically there is no real rule.
"Well, it's in the column over there..." ;) (quoting one of Matt's gripes). The Rulebook does answer this question there, btw. It's from base unless the model doesn't have a base and then it's from the "hull."
I feel like you really over complicated some of those issues you had. It sounded just like the never ending rules banter associated with 6th/7th edition, and though I get some of your points, I think you're failing to see the easier answers that were implicitly intended.
Hey Matt! Interesting tidbit with the Flyrant devourers. On the wargear options for the Hive Tyrant it says "A Hive Tyrant may replace both pairs of monstrous scything talons with two items from the Monstrous Bio-cannons...". And under Monstrous Bio-cannons a single choice is listed as - Two devourers with brainleech worms. From the people I've spoken to this generally means you replace each pair of monstrous scything talons with 2x devourers, so you get 4x devourers overall. This effectively doubles the amount of shots, same as everything else twin-linked.
Shamelessly upvoting myself so either Matt can see this or someone else can tell me I'm wrong (because it's my housemate that plays nids and I would be glad to hear his Flyrant only gets half the shots).
Invulns and re-rolls should be very rare. They should be the mark of a truly unique unit or situation. You can stack re-rolls to hit and wound very easily.
Topic of rerolls and modifiers: For example: Your unit is allowed to reroll hits of 1 and your are hitting on 3+. And your are shooting a unit and get a modifier of -1 to hit. Now you roll your normal hit roll of 3+, reroll all 1 and then apply modifiers. Now the other way round: You roll your hit roll of 3+, apply modifiers and all of the sudden you are rerolling all failed hit rolls, because all 2s rolled, get modified to be a 1. So debuffs can potentially help you out
The painting tutorials alone are worth the vault membership. I signed up at Adepticon and it's fantastic. Also, power level is AMAZING for pick up games. My friends and I made played a Power Level game last week using some of the leaked rules and we wanted to see just how broken units could be. I was so much fun. We love to play competitively and will be transitioning back to points once we all have the official books, but power level is a whole bunch of fun and a fantastic way to get new players into the came.
I like the modifiers being applied at the end, it means that rerolls don't automatically cancel out defensive benefits. It does make it a little more complex but what it does achieve is to make sure both offensive and defensive buffs are as effective as they should be, and ensure they're not more effective than they should be.
I don't know why everyone is so excited about the changes to flamers. Flamers in 7th edition did exactly what they were supposed to: kill hordes, or at the very least force them to maneuver differently.
Your Cons: 1) Stormshields give you extra protection but you don't hit as hard IIRC. You lose out on shooty weapons for that model. Most lists just grab one or two in a set. It is also to make it so you don't have to use high AP modifiers on terminators all the time. A melta gun is -4 AP and if the stormshield worked as you wanted it to, terminators would be unbelievably tanky. Your terminator keeps going and your opponent is wasting valuable shots on troops essentially. 2) Genestealers are given an invuln instead of -1 to hit because the Tyranid army has other modifiers in it that reduce your chance to hit. For example, Venomthropes gives friendly units in a radius a -1 to hit modifier. The Horror, a tyranid psychic power gives a target units within 24'' -1 to hit. This means a target unit can get a total of -3 to hit against genestealers. That wouldn't be balanced. Space Marines hitting on 6s. GEQ not hitting at all. 3) If everything gives you an armor save modifier instead of invuln, you would have to increase the AP of weapons to compensate. Notice that most of the heavy hitting -AP modifiers are meant for monster and vehicles, not for troops. 4) For rerolls, an easy way to remember it is you get to reroll natural misses. So if I am BS3, I reroll 2's and 1's. Do so, and then add the negative modifiers. Makes it much easier. It sounds a little weird, but it works this way. I guess some clarification could be done. 5) The idea is that you only have to read the rules on your index or faction. Some of it has flavor text, which I suppose can be confusing. They want you to be able to play and have everything you need right there. It is to safe time and to also reduce the learning curve. 6) I get what you're saying with the Riptide, but by the same token would you suggest that a Ghostkeep is not a monster? What about the crisis commander? They're pretty big units in size compared to the riptide. What point do battlesuits stop becoming infantry or monsters and start becoming vehicles? 7) Rules in columns is a really bad idea. There's important rules all over the place. For example, the Reinforcement rule is way the heck away from any of the other main rules. WHY?! You cannot use Command Points before the game has started. 8) For charging, I think the rule book says that you measure from the base or the model if it does not have a base.
Hi Matthew! regarding measuring there is actually one of those annoying text boxes on the side called Tools of war, on the page before the movement phases called Core Rules. In here there is this quote "Distances in Warhammer 40k are measured in inches between the closes points of the bases of the models you're measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such is the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model's hull instead." So if there's a base, distance is always measured to the base, unless otherwise specified on the model rules (such as for starweavers or w/e)
Well, Matt. I have truly enjoyed your videos and especially your batreps as you always made the effort to play the game by the rules and followed them consistently so they were good sources for correct game play. But after your comments around the 41 minute mark and your valiant, but ultimately doomed to fail attempt to backpedal out of them, it was nice knowing you. Hope she doesn't go too harsh on you, but you had the choice to use the edit feature before you hit upload, so I guess you will get what you deserve. Good luck!
At 26:23 Matt talks about 'hit rolls', defined as modified dice rolls, vs 'natural rolls', which are unmodified dice rolls. He says 'If you have a Captain nearby, instead of saying re-roll hit rolls of 1, say re-roll natural dice rolls of 1'. The problem here is that the rule wouldn't be saying what those natural dice rolls are for. It would have to say they are the natural dice rolls for the hit rolls, but 'hit rolls' have already been defined as modified dice rolls.
A small thing but the removal of wrecks is a little sad according to me. Had smoke plumes for them and it added flavor to the battlefield as they got sprinkled with the wrecks of leman russes and etc
Concerning the measuring from base to base thing: You always measure the shortest distance base to base. If the model doesnt have a base, you measure shortest distance from the hull instead (Source pg 176 BRB "Tools of War"). Models like Eldar Skimmers have a rule that states that you measure from the hull although they have a base. Now, of course this opens up the debate what exactly the "hull" of a vehicle is. but at least GW tried.
I feel that the 'more thematic' bit is not only concerning the keywords. As an eldar player I can just look at all of the weapons and vehicle upgrades and what-have-you and immediately tell that this feels thematically appropriate compared to the fluff. No longer do you have the catch all term of Destroyer to describe all of the super-duper powerful weapons, but you now have a Strength, Ap and damage that paints a much more clear image of just how strong (or weak) your weapon is, etc. The same can be said about the special rules that are now all included on the datasheet (though I can agree that it might have been useful to know whether or not it's deep strike, or infiltrate or whatever at a glance without having to read the entire thing to make sure) It's narrative through mechanics done pretty well, I think. Especially compared to previous edition.
In reference to your complaint about having no USR's. I think removing the majority of them is the best thing they could of done to remove confusion during game play. I don't know how many times people had a wording dispute over a USR, had to open the rulebook and hunt it down just to figure out how it works in that situation. It ate up time, game time during tournaments that is precious to both players. Now, all the rules for that specific model are right there on the scroll. Just like Age of Sigmar. It's easy, because if you aren't playing with the model, you don't need to know what it does. So instead of memorizing what all these bajillion USR's do now, and having to hunt them down in the book, they're just listed as a physical ability for that model, right there. Saves a lot of time trust me. Also wait till they create an app like they did with Age of Sigmar, being able to sort your scrolls in front of you is amazing for tablets and makes games go ten times quicker. USR's were ambiguous because some times you would forget what it does, because there were SO MANY OF THEM. But now they're written out, clear as day, no confusion about what they do. Adding 15 pages of USR's back into the book, and forcing players to look up that page instead of read it on their scroll, is extremely inefficient and it burns game time unnecessarily. I know that some people had all the USR's memorized and they loved how easy it was to just label something and know what it did, but this also makes it much easier for new players to grasp and not feel daunted. They dont have to know how to navigate a massive rule book just to find a specific USR. Now we can just get into the game, even without knowing the rules, because it's all laid out for us. Personal preference can definitely count as a con, I totally agree. But I think if something makes the game faster, more efficient and saves us time and makes it easier to learn and draw new players into the hobby, then it isn't a con. It's not bad design, if its getting us more players and saving us time. You just haven't seen the long term benefit of it yet, give it time. Keep it Simple Silly (the Kiss acronym modified to be friendly, but it's so relevant here.)
Hi Matt!! With regards to USR's. Not having them and giving similar rules different names means that if a particular unit becomes over or underpowered they can FAQ the wording on that rule to keep units balanced in the future. If they used USR's you could only add or remove those rules and not be able to modify them in the future! But great content guys thanks for your efforts!! 👍👍
This is the first time I've watched you do an analysis. Normally it's watching you paint. This was VERY easy to watch. Loved it. Going to check out our vault now bc of this specific video....while I work on my Primaris Raven Guard...Heheh.
the thing about broadsides is that they cost right around 3 times as many points with no upgrades. With the new rules, they're way stronger, but maybe not three times stronger. Not that it justifies the devourer thing granted. I've also noticed that things that reduce hit by one are things that "make it hard to aim" like the target being high in the air, or creating smoke/dust, whereas invuln saves are for the character actually reacting to a hit and dodging.
I agree with you on the vehicles locked in combat, especially like the example you gave. The tanks don't feel like tanks if you can stop them from shooting with 3 small guys. Sure, if a tank goes raming speed in another tank, shooting might be difficult, but...
For the most part the cons are primarily rules clarifications and inconsistencies rather than balance and mechanics which is a good thing. The whole re-roll thing is ridiculous which I can imagine there will be a myriad of house rules to address it. Thanks for the vid.
Because if you read it literally as it is in print in the rules and you take the perspective of someone who has never played a TT game before. You will then understand why the rule is written so poorly.
Siunn Lo because when your Army stands still and shoots the fuck out of stuff you become very impatient when no one pays attention to you. the worst part is they do not realize that they are being ignored... Wait for it... *for the greater good.* BOOM!
On the topic of invulnerable saves, while I think your point are valid, I think invulns should stay. Let's take your two examples of what invulns could be replaced with, that being negative to hit mods and armor save roll mods. Starting with the hit mods, this current edition is appearing to the flamer edition, meaning a large amount of auto hitting. This means that armies and units the would have their invulns replaced with a negative to hit modifier could be destroyed in a matter of turns. Take Harlequins for example, every infantry model (Including their characters) only have a natural 6+ armor save, meaning that they get no saves against heavy flamers. There is also that fact that many armies have ways to positively modify their to hit rolls, so the rule giving the negative would be pointless. As for the suggestion of having them modify armor saves, I think this case is much better to argue. I can see units of demons with a natural 7+ saves, but they get something like +2 to the roll because they are demons. But this still leads to armies that rely on having their invulnerable saves very weak, because ultimately all you would need to do would be hit them with -2 AP weapons to beat them. Personally, I think invulns should work something along the lines of a unit can make X amount of successful invulnerable save per turn. For example, let's say that a unit of terminators can make 10 successful invulns saves per turn before their powerfield is overloaded meaning they have to rely on their armor saves, but at the start of the next turn their powerfields have recharged and they can make invulns save again as described above. For Harlequins, it could be that they can make like 8 successful invulns saves before their holographic projections become so distorted from the copious amount of gun fire/ melee attacks that it become obvious which one is the real harlequin and at the start of each turn the holograms stabilize and they can make invulns again. But that is just my opinion and suggestion, if you think other wise than feel free to respond. P.S Sorry if there are any spelingl or grammar mistakes, just got back from a night out on the town with a few mates of mine.
I'm not a fan of this as it's one more wound like thing to keep track of, and it doesn't scale that well (in small games it's amazing, in large games it's useless) Also matts suggestion for invuns (well at least for storm shield terminators) would be a huge buff. As any ap -1 or -2 weapons would be leaving, you with your 2+ save, and -3 would be back to your current invun, so only a very small selection on -4 weapons would actually get better. Well except eldar whos (already awesome) wraith weapons, would be universally better vs storm shields.
Gordon Wilson yes Matt's would work for terminators, but that doesn't mean it would work for every model that currently in the game. Terminators already have a 2+ save, meaning any ability that gives them a bonus to their save rolls is always superior to any form a an unmodifiable save. Because even if you counter the bonus, they will still have an amazing save.However terminators are just one unit in a game with well over a hundred. For example, Mandrakes, Wracks, Daemons, Harlequins and most Tyranid creatures with an invulnerable have significantly worse armour saves, meaning that once the bonus has been countered it only leaves them with a mediocre saves. While unlike currently, they would get a save roll against those weapons the nullify the bonus, the fact that the save can be further modified means it is almost pointless having it there. Let's say you get +2 to your save rolls, that sounds pretty good because it means they would need to hit you with at least a -2 weapon before the start hitting your natural save. However, most MEQs and TEQs in 8th have relatively easy access to weapons with a -3 or greater weapons (looking at you Dark eldar) meaning units with low natural armour saves that rely on their invulnerable saves would be too easily dealt with if all they got was an armour save bonus. As for my suggestion on a better way to do invulnerable, I mainly suggested it to be that way because that is how the various forms of invulnerable saves are described in the fluff. Is it perfect? Probably not (there is a reason why I am an accountant rather than a game designer), but I feel that it is the best compromise for people like me who love invulnerable saves and people like Matt who don't.
I agree, when I say it would be a buff to terminators with storm shields, I'm saying that is not a good thing. And yes save modifiers to other units that are more ethereal, doesn't make much sense. I'm ok with to hit modifiers to represent speed or phasing out and into reality etc, however, these modifiers hugely hurt already inaccurate armies, and don't play towards everyone having a decent swing at hurting stuff (which seems to be one of the driving forces of 8th)
Also, invuls allow the defending Player to roll and reroll. I actually think -to hit represent something just being hard to hit, and invuls represent active dodging (in Speed based invuls)
It may be because I've had too many wines, sitting here with a nice glass of red, but this is a fantastic video - both for entertainment value and usefulness. GW need to see this and act upon it. The comments on both pros and cons are spot on. nice one
I'd love to be a Vault member... but having to go to your website, then use vimeo, limiting viewing to computers pretty much. It's such an inconvenience. Especially on devices like tablets, or consoles. Isn't there a way you could still put your vault videos on youtube, but make it so only certain users can view them? Maybe youtube red? I dunno, but that's what's keeping me at bay
Tablet you should be fine with Vimeo? For console, I use a Google chromecast which plugs into my TV and lets me stream anything from my computer/phone etc to my TV. It's just like $60 and it requires basically zero setup.
On the modifiers on the reroll discussion, it applies to the second roll only, so say you have a hit of 4+ with a +1 (3+) and reroll of 1. pick up all your 1's and the reroll is done at 4+ (before you apply the +1 on the reroll)
totally agree on the "monsters" and assaults on higher levels - was ridiculous in 7th that my defiler couldn't hit units on an upper floor despite being physically eye-to-eye with them.
The universal special rules is a tough one i think. Yeah it simplifies things in that you just know what it means and it applies throughout but breaking it down into individual rules allows a lot more control over the faction balance.
I have to say, having had my first two games in 8th, vs Orks, my Sisters lost, but that was more because of my own fault. They held up much better than in 7th. And both games were done with in 3 hours total. It is a fun system that is easy to learn and plays smoothly.
Great review. Thanks very much. I've been loving the game myself so far, with my only small gripes being: I wish flamer weapons hit on 2+ instead of automatically and that weapons with ranges of less than 12" or pistols couldn't shoot at flyers unless they were in hover mode.
@10:05 remember you can lock up land raiders and it's occupants if you surround them and prevent them from falling back or disembarking, iirc landraiders can only kill a couple gaunts a turn.
Matt getting philosophical - are we determining dice rolls? Are they indetermined or are they determined? Was it pre-determined at the beginning of the universe that Quark will always roll 1s?
My only problem with 8th ed and the FAQ is the fact that even if a character is the only closest viable target, if there are enemy models closer, say in a combat you cannot shoot that character.
"Distances in Warhammer 40,000 are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such is the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model’s hull instead. You can measure distances whenever you wish." Core Rules Tools of War sidebar.
The Exterminator Autocannon on Leman Russ has the same twin-linked problem, it used to be four shots twin-linked, now its just four shots, which makes a huge difference.
36:30 You measure from the base. This is in the book at the beginning where it says when measuring, you measure from the base unless it doesn't have a base or says otherwise.
One thing I think would be neat is if former template weapons had shots based on the size of the opposing unit. So let's say it has just one model = one hit. If it has 5 models = W3 hits. If it has 5-10 models = W6 hits. If it has 10-20 models = 2W6 hits. Tweak the numbers, but give the weapons a benefit from hitting squads with many models, since that's where templates shoud shine...
Here's a few interpretations of your rules quandries: 24:42 Regarding Rolls before modifiers. As it stands right now: Due to the wording of "Re-roll failed Hits," for example - Hitting on 4, rolling a 3 with a +1 would be a re-roll. This is because the "Re-roll failures" trigger resolves itself before the +1 modifier can be applied. After any re-rolls are taken, the modifier is then applied, and ANY 3's that are showing, either naturally or as a result of re-rolls would become 4's. I think this is deliberate, forcing people to choose character/troop combinations that either give them 2 chances at one probability, or increasing the probability of their first roll by 16%. The use of "may" in the re-roll wording is also deliberate. Say you have 4 failures but 2 of them are 3's. If you do take the re-roll, there's no guarantees you'll get more than 2 successes, or 2 or more 3's would show and it would therefore be prudent to let the trigger resolve so the modifier carries those 3's up to 4's. Likewise, if all 4 failures are 2's or lower, taking the re-roll can only ever increase the chance you succeed, or roll a 3 - which would become 4 after the modifier is applied. One case where this gets hairy is "re-roll 1's," while hitting on a 2, with a +1 modifier. Re-rolling the 1 would 5 times out of 6 be a success and no further action is required, but in the case of re-rolling another 1, that result must stand, as each failure can only be re-rolled once, then the modifier would be applied to ALL dice in the dice pool, making it a success. Making it impossible to fail that roll. Another unique case is Necron Tesla. It's worded "Each hit roll of 6+ causes 3 hits instead of 1." The word "Each" instead of "On a," and the "+" part of 6+ implies that this is a value that is part of a possible range that can be altered or subject to modification. Thus, the Overlord with "Will be Done" can make the effective value of 5 + 1 to be included as 6+ in the same way 7 resulting from modifying a 6 + 1 is included. With it working the other way - Rolling a dice, contesting a "To Hit" at -1. At the time a re-roll is able to be taken, the board check believes it to be a success, and cannot be included in the re-roll. Then as modifiers are applied, it is removed and wounds are determined with this new dice pool, with the board state at this time never having "known" they were successes at all. This is meant to represent the "Dynamic" "motion" of battle, where a shot fired confidently knowing it will hit can miss due to misjudging speed or trajectory. With the "Get's Hot!" rule. It's worded as: "On a hit roll of 1, the bearer is slain." This implies that it is a trigger that is independent of the turn, that is - it occurs when the game senses a to hit roll of 1 is made, everything else stops until that is resolved. It does not occur if a rule modifies a "value" to 1, as it's "actual" value is the equation 2 - 1 = 1, not a 1. Likewise, adding a +1 does not make you immune due to the "Get's Hot" trigger occurring as the 1 is rolled, not resolving after modifiers are applied. In much the same way, 1 + 1 = 2, but it doesn't stop being a 1. Re-rolling a 1 does not apply, as when the 1 is first rolled, the board check will trigger a re-roll, but the the game stops while the "Get's Hot" resolves. When the re-roll resolves, the weapon is no longer present and so dissipates with no result. 27:30 About the wound/damage/suffers wording. Part 5, page 181 states "A model loses a wound for each point of damage it suffers." A word of note is "model" and not "unit." Units are targeted by "To Hit" and "To Wound" and "Damage." When the defending player makes the decision to allocate unsaved wounding dice to a specific model, it stops being damage as potential and becomes Wounds suffered. When this happens, "Feel no Pain" PROCs and the player rolls it out. The wording is important due to the prevalence of multi-damage "D" weapons. "Damage" is determined AFTER "Saving Throws." 2 unanswered "to wound" successes may be 5 damage total if the weapons are D3. You would not roll 2 dice for 2 "to Wound" successes, you would roll 5 - one for each Wound Suffered. It's also worded strangely due to mortal wounds, where no "to Wound" roll is made, and no "Saving Throws" are allowed, but damage is still inflicted as a Wound to a specific model, and would trigger "Feel no Pain." 33:00 In real life vehicles can't fire weapons over a certain calibre if it is deemed to be too dangerous to the occupants of the firing vehicle. Slinging a 105 shell into something less than a metre away is a silly way to shred yourself with the flak and shrapnel. Using a HE round would probably rupture every blood vessel in your head. It not the most pleasant way to go. So a vehicle not shooting vehicles they are in contact with is a realistic rule based on practical combat doctrines. They should still be able to fire at targets with weapons not facing the vehicle in contact with. I seem to recall, maybe Gorkamorka days, when you could totally just plow infantry into the dirt. Squishing meatbags under the caterpillar tracks is good fun, and totally realistic. 36:20 Concerning the Base or Model rules. That 40K is a "restrictive" rule set and not a "permissive" rule set is the determining factor. It's a "this is what you can do" as opposed to a "do anything you want as long as it's not prohibited." I think it was established back in 3rd or so that it's ALWAYS measured back of base to front of base, so no matter what happens you can't sneak a larger model an extra inch or so whilst moving to get them in range. While it's not specifically stated here, the fact that it DOES specify on certain models and scenarios that you measure from the model itself tells us that if it *isn't* stated as a specific, it's measured from the base. So in the case of a flyer being charged by Assault Marines, I think it specifically says the closest part of the Marine must have enough movement to end up within 1 inch of the model. It's possible to be in base-to-base contact, but then snake eyes the charge roll and not "jump" high enough to hit the craft. Measured from the closest part, whether it is the base if standing on a roof, or the helmet if directly underneath.
About the general special rules: I agree, the wording should be unified (for rules that are meant to work exactly the same), but I love the different and fluffy names for the rules. And they are much easier to change on a unit basis (if you discover straight up fnp is too strong for a unit, you soften it up a little without having to modify a USR)..
Things they missed: Blast weapons are no longer used against hordes. In fact you're throwing away tons of dmg by aiming at hordes. Cover is pretty weak now. Models with 10 wounds get intervening cover but not "toe cover", but models with less than 10 do not get intervening cover and EVERY model in the squad needs to be standing in cover to get any. You can be shooting through a 100 models and a building and that model will not get cover :p
The worst thing about this evasion-based invulnerable save business is the assassin with the turbo-penetrator rounds. Made to punch through the toughest of shields, it can't be dodged either, even though characters are able to dodge fire from anything else, up to and including actual, 229,792,458 metres per second lasers.
In regards to Monsters not being able to charge units on the second floor of buildings. They could add a rule where monsters are able to TEAR DOWN the building to get at those units.
You could fix attack rerolls by saying that the attacker can define when an attack is a miss on a 1-3. This mostly prevents abuse of extra effects on a 6 but still fixes the problem of when an attack can be rerolled.
On the topic of "Why aren't there Universal Special rules, that are just copy pasted?" The answer is actually very simple: If one unit has "Disgustingly Resilient" and another has "Feel No Pain" then those two rules can be altered and updated differently down the line. If it turns out the units with "Feel No Pain" are to resilient then maybe they drop it from a 5+ to a 6+, but the "Disgustingly Resilient" unit's aren't disgusting enough so theirs suddenly become a 4+. And beyond that. Not having a centralized location for rules, like 3rd to 7th had you aren't risking ruining armies that rely on their USR to be good. (5th to 6th edition Orks and Furious Charge for instance) They are named differently because they are similar but not the same rules. They should have copy pasted the wording on similar rules though, just kept the names separate.
YESSS!!!! lol, I have said exactly what you said about Invulnerable saves! Tanks should not be locked into Close Combat, and "Tank Shock" should be deals 1D3 mortal wounds.
From playing the new game at warhammer fest I understand ( through the death guards disgustingly resilient save ) that those types of feel no painesque rolls are taken after the to wound roll but before the damage roll ( ie the d6 you roll for your lascannon or whatever ) the armour saves come after feel no pain but before the damage roll.
A quick note about the Con when dealing with models on flyer bases. On page 176 on the side bar you measure from the models base if it has one. If not you use the models hull. So they did deal with that problem from AoS.
Since Matt mentioned "Fewer or no deathstars", I wanted to share I found something that is kind of a borderline deathstar with the Black Templar, just having Helbrect, Grimaldus, Emperor's Champion, Apothecary, maybe an ancient, and some flavor of really angry melee unit, clowncar'd into a Crusader. Somehow the idea of having the various overlapping auras they offer, I feel like there's still a potential for some ridiculous combos, once people start looking for them.
I *love* the new old armour penetration system. Before it cheapened both armour and invulnerable saves, as they were both essentially the same thing. Now invulnerable saves are 'cheapened' by mortal wounds and I'm honestly unsure how I feel about that. On one hand it's kinda stupid that smite can punch through a daemon's invulnerable save simply by virtue that it's supposed to represent a mixture of it's otherworldy nature and the whole 'divine' thing; but on the other side of the coin it wouldn't make sense for a psyker to not suffer from perils of the warp because he ducks behind his storm shield as part of his brain explodes. I agree with the invulnerable save being common thing, that sorta ties in with my thing above. Although I am clearly biased because I do think Daemons should have it by simple virtue is that they're not mortal. They don't have hearts, or internal organs. They are manifested warp energy. As to the 'there is no universal special rules' thing... There is. Sorta. The best example I can think of is in the section for Chaos Daemons. There's universal rules saying what 'Daemonic' does, and what the God trait is too (Unstoppable Ferocity, Epheremeal Form etc, etc) and what Daemonic Ritual is as well (as an aside; does anyone else think it's strange how *the* army that was all Deep Strike is now not? 8th ed Chaos Daemons is very very similar to how 7th ed and 8th ed fantasy worked)
I am waaay late to this video but I agree with what you’re saying about Invulnerable saves. I don’t like the inconsistency with what they represent... sometimes it’s extra good armor, sometimes lightning fast reflexes, sometimes energy or psychic fields. I’d like it better if it consistently represented one thing and yes use the armor piercing or hit rolls for what it doesn’t.
Anybody who says that Templates being removed is bad never had to make sure their 90+ gants were all exactly 1 inch away from one another to avoid being completely demolished by a pie-plate falling from the sky.
The interpretation I do with the base and models is that models with base count as a cylinder with such base and so you measure to the base but horizontally and in the case of vehicles or models without base you measure to the model. In fact I think that only flyer vehicles have that rule of don't measure to the base
A bit nitpicky (because I agree the deployment map rule is poorly worded) but "randomly determine" is perfectly valid. Determine just means decide or choose. It makes sense to say "the player determines x by rolling a D6". The confusion comes from the fact that they specify which player chooses I. One section, and the fact that it is randomly chosen in another. Who cares who rolls the die in this case?
In reference to where you measure from (and Matt will love this) the side bar on page 176 of the rule book states measure from the base unless the model has no base. In which case you measure from the hull. I searched for this because I am a Necron player and have a couple vehicles with a special rule that states to measure from the hull rather than the base.
Reason why all the "so fast" "much reflexes" things are invul saves and not -1 to hit": Simply, because invul saves can't be modified much. They are kept as a static number. -1 to hit on the other hand is everywhere in aura form. So they just wanted to avoid deathstars with -3 to hit
The problem with the Keywords and custom factions is now that units (or more precisely characters) with a certain fixed keyword, or ability that targets only the models with said keyword, are really annoying when building a list, that doesn't include those factions. For example, I really love the Dark Eldars' character Urien Rakarth. He is awesome, but has the part of his Keywords already filled out with "Prophets of Flesh", and one of his key abilities (granting +1 T to Coven models within 6" of him) ONLY works on Prophets of Flesh models. So suddenly, I will never be able to field this guy effectively in a fluff oriented army, since I have my very own Coven already fluffed out and this guy just doesn't fit in there, because his Buff isn't transferred to my coven models, but for some reason a basic haemonculus can do the same job better, since his ability targets ANY model within 6"...
Imothek Yeah, they did this on purpose so you couldn't take space wolves, dark angels, tiggy and greyknights and have them all buff each other. What was gained is greater than what was lost.
Matt, the Riptide counts as a monstrous creature because of the way it moves. It's agile. Like the Wraithknight and Wraithlord. They are not ponderous and slow.
First of all: great review, i really liked. why astra militarum is bad at power levels? chimeras with 2 heavy flamers (like free 40 points with storm bolter), leman russes with free 3 heavy flamers (60 points with storm bolter), veterans with 2 flamers, 1 heavy flamer and 1 missile launcher/lascannon, all sergeants with free fists and plasma pistols, super cheap heavy weapon squads with 3 lascannons, 30 conscript for 4 PL (with 1 orders at 12" those are 120 lasgun shots......if you roll a little above average you can easily dish 5 wounds statistically to a big monster). yeah i just realise that you need to have a HUGE collection to field these kind of stuff. 22:00 they didn't get rid of invuln with hit modifiers cause there are autohit weapons, and suddendly a lot of units would drop like flies, the quoted Genestealers would charge 2 flamers and simply die. Invuln is ok, the problem is that after 5+ it should become a mix (In Media Stat Virtus ALWAYS), Terminator Storm Shields? +1 invuln (never over 4+) +1 armour (basically it is a cover if you think about it, so an adamantium ruin building gives you +1, so a shield can do the same). 26:00 my hats off cause you are explaining this problem perfectly and im gonna send everyone to this link to explain the reroll problem. The natural dice definition would be such a great solution, and it's strange that is not there since D&D introduced it in 1492 and it's so natural for GDR players. 30:00 yeah! we all hate ryptides too! go Matthew XD 32:00 unfortunately they still didn't fix the abyss between hoover vehicles armies and heavy vehicles armies, armour 3+ and 4+ is not enough when a fly vehicle can do all that crazy OP shanenigans like fall back and shoot everything. 37:00 repeat with me: inquisition acolytz are not a typo, inquisition acolytz are not a typo, inquisition acolytz are not a typo (now start laughting really wicked while you put 12 units and 36 wounds in 1 chimera) i really hope they don't fix it before the next tournament. 39:00 also exterminator autocannons got the devourer treatment too. 1 problem i found out for now is with Glorious Intervention: I can move 3" but if i'm not within 1" of an enemy model or 1" from a model from my unit (and since i'm a character it's impossible cause i have no unit) i can't fight, so what's the matter? If i'm moving toward a unit that charged someone else, there will be the someone else between enemies and the character. It really works rarely, would have been better with 1 more line saying: 'any characters count friendly same-keyword units as its unit when choosing which enemy unit they can allocate attacks to'.
They should just say that modifiers affect your target number, not your dice roll. +1 to hit becomes -1 to the target number. 1s fail always, any other roll is based against modified target number. I mean....that's how everyone seems to do it anyway (because you need to quickly know which dice you discard, and which dice to you grab to continue), and I strongly suspect that is how they meant it.
My biggest problem is the new psychic phase, I feel like it detracts a lot of power from psykers (which is most likely exactly what they were trying to do, since armies like GK and deamons could abuse it too easily and yet i think they kinda screwed up with some changes) Having smite across the board as a reliable source of psychic damage should be good but paired with the extremely reduced selection of powers and the restrictions for casting the same power several times in the same phase just makes spamming smite the better option 80% of the time, so now psychic phase is just smite and deny phase. At the same time characters like Ahriman lost a lot of their pyschic dakka (no more re-casting witchfires) and now feel way too pricey for what they bring. Though the worst of all is the loss of variety on the powers selection: getting rid of a good chunk of the disciplines, replacing 6 powers with 3 on the remaining ones and making every character (at least, for what i can tell so far) only have acces to a single discipline makes it a whole lot simpler and easier to balance, but it feels like a huge cop out to doing the actual work of re-balancing the old powers (especially since the new powers are far from being balanced, see: the entire tzeench discipline, Infernal Gaze from hereticus aka shitty smite, etc) overall the only thing I like about it is the new charge generation, far better in my opinion. Everything else could be way better.
at 31:33 on the command point for deployment zone, I would argue it as a definite yes. Largely because under the matched play strategem rules it specifically makes an exception for pre game rolls, so this would count. You could technically re roll it as many times as you have command points.
You are correct, didn't think of that. The rules don't stop you from spamming applicable strategems pre game. So you could buy the re roll 15 times but only get the one re roll. More realistically though is you could re roll every pre game roll you might make (mission, maps, seize, anything else I'm forgetting).
Matt, universal specials are not the way to go. They should help if most of the units were the same, and I mean in every way. However, when you have a Universal Special Rules and then 3/4 of the units have caveats which have to be read individually anyways there really is no point. They also make balancing the game almost impossible, because if you want to alter Deepstrike for Deathmarks you also alter it for Terminators. Take Disgustingly resilent for example, Poxwalkers and Great Unclean One both posses the ability and if they were to change the roll to a 4+ it would benefit the Great Unclean One much greater then the Poxwalkers, not to mention Plague Marines, and Blight Drones. On top of all that there are still Universal Special Rules they are just Army Special rules now, Like Favor of Tzeentch for Thousand Sons, Disgustingly Resilient for Death Guard, Rising Crescendo for Harlequins, Bonding Knife Ritual for Tau. Every one of those rules has a single entry that you read. What they did from my perspective was create as balanced a game as possible and THEN consolidated where they could, which in my opinion is a good thing.
Comment on measuring from model vs base: Imagine a Cylinder from a base to the height of the main body of the model and regard this as the model. Then imagine a simplified 3D form of a baseless model and regard this as the model. This should give you simple forms that are in contact or withing 1inch of each other regarded in 3D space.
The re rolls when explained are okay, but very counter intuitive. Probably the number 1 thing people will get wrong playing the game. I disagree with the universal special rules. It will be easier for them to change units and wargear as needed. Changing a universal special rule will effect too many things overall. Being able to zoom in on issues as they show up and change them without it effecting the overall game is beneficial. IMO I agree with the colum thing. According to FLG the game is played in 3d and you measure to the model. The base is part of the model IMO. They stated this will be FAQ'd
Left wargaming for couple of years, heard 8th ed wasn't too bad, came here to listen to your review, and end up being terribly disappointed with GW once again. They are just incapable of making a tight, properly worded, unambiguous ruleset. They just can't. So many years, so many editions, and they have learnt nothing.
36:07 this is to imply that skimmer Tank stands don't apply. Terrestrial tanks do not have a base and you would measure from the model. Smaller skimmers like jet bikes still use the base. That is at least how I took it.
