40K: Jervis & Robin Talk 8th Rules Design

Sit down with Jervis Johnson and Robin Cruddace to talk shop on Warhammer 40,000’s new ruleset.

Key Design Takeaways

  • Design was designed to keep the depth and granularity of 40K.
  • More accessible to new players than the old ruleset.
  • Unified rules structure that can handle anything from a grot to a Warlord titan.
  • Support multiple styles of play from casual to competitive.
  • Putting the rules you need to play in front of the player when they need them – datasheets.
  • Power Level ratings reflects the “average” power level of a unit between it’s minimum and maximum equipment options.
  • Keywords are designed to both allow desired rules synergies while restricting unwanted rules combos in one elegant package.
  • Command Points give the player some strategy options to give them a feel of command outside of their models.

Look for more of these in the days ahead.

~ I guess no Warhammer Design Team shirt for Jervis. 🙁

 

  • Nesred22 .

    “Unified rules structure that can handle anything from a grot to a Warlord titan” = Blandness

    Other than that I like what they set out to do.

    • Randy Randalman

      It isn’t bland. You clearly haven’t played with these rules yet. Every single unit feels completely unique, yet the rules don’t contradict or overlap. Furthermore, each unit is knock-your-socks-off good; but again, very different from one another.

      In previous editions, the core rules were extremely bloated and added things to the game that took away from the player, while also DISCOURAGING interactivity. The units themselves were absolute garbage, with less that 2-3 total playable units per faction; and only then because of broken loophole rules stacking.

      • Crevab

        It baffles me that this is the kind of representation that GW wants from their PR team

      • alberto alderighi

        as you said units were overpowered not the statline system.

        raptors/assoult marine cost as bikes for istances was stupid…

        Sy they could had simply remove the dmg table for vehicle at this point and we will still have a better overall system, try ask those who playtest charcater movement + cavarly and escort with mixing unit; is a mess you have character which move slower than their units while shooty army just get the advantage as always; zerg army fin becuase you have not enough saturation or large blast to make the work as in 7ed

        also you got from 7th where all unit moved the same way either 6″ or 12″ all had a scalable wide stat system to 8th were the only scaleable stat is toughness. WS do not scale well; is either too good or bad. Movement is a mess with units which move from 6 ,7,8 to 10,12,14 .

        • Heinz Fiction

          While I don’t like everything they did in 8th edition, the reintroduction of the movement stat is a very good thing.
          In previous editions younot only had 6″ or 12″ movement, you also had those units that could re-roll their run distance or pick the highest of 3 dice as well as those with 3″ bonus to one of their various moves, those who weren’t slowed by terrain or not as much, those who could move again in their assault phase so on. A simple stat is so much more elegant.

          • Muninwing

            yet that too robs from the game.

            it’s not hard to keep track of differences if the base is standard. now, it’s having to look up the movement stat each time.

            it was also not as complicated as you claim.

            and terrain was also a factor. difficult terrain slowed down movement. difficult terrain mattered, since in a warzone not everything will be flat. it meant paying attention to location and such mattered, and affected decision-making.

            now, it’s a free for all.

      • Nesred22 .

        What I was referring to is that a grot, land raider and titan all technically behave the same way now. I think it’s a slight fail in design to have no well integrated mechanics that give the player different experiences when using such vastly different units. Commanding a superheavy tank should be a different experience from ordering a squad of men around, otherwise yes I think it’s going into bland territory if everything is essentially a different sized blob that shoots max dice out in all directions.

        • davepak

          not even remotely true.

          They have commonbaseline, but many units have their unique combos – what is “bland” is more standard rules for how they work.

          But even with that, many units still have their special rules.
          Mawloc – still has terror from the deep
          Combi weapons – tau and necrons would kill for these
          Hauraspex – has cool eating rules
          Command barge – cool buffs
          Tau drones – awesome how they can be separate units, but still contribute to squads
          Ctan – night bringer and Deceiver are different, but both dangerous
          Primaris jump – very different from any other marines
          Eldar Archon – allows for detachment variants
          Ork Warboss – breakin heads rule.
          Bomb Squigs – just awesome

          Etc.

          Commanding the tank is – it is more durable, can move faster, does not fear certain units, and can unleash hell at 60 inches.

          The new game perfect? NO!
          Is it a lot better and fun! YES!

          Try adjusting your attitude, and you might actually enjoy the game.

          If you are looking for the negative and something to complain about, you will always find it.

      • Defenestratus

        Whats the difference between a wraithknight and an imperial knight other than the arms it puts on in the morning?

        I’ll wait.

        • Muninwing

          …. well?

          what’s the punchline?

        • Stealthbadger

          Isn’t that a sort of ok thing though? A balance between at least two factions?

          Plus it’s not really fair to say, ‘Apart from the different features of weapons , what’s the difference?’

      • Muninwing

        captain hyperbole to the rescue!!!

    • Tshiva keln

      It’s not bland though as the differences are still there, they are just contained within rules on the data sheet. This removes pages of rules of unit type from the book and saves looking up rules which is good, but keeps the differences still there as required. Unified structure mean having the same stat line which makes sense as attacks follow the same rules whether it’s a lasgun at an ork or a lascannon at a tank. Now that stats don’t max out at 10 there is no need for special rules to differentiate the two.

      • Muninwing

        it’s not bland. it’s just that all the flavor is overwhelmed by the unified baseline.

        • Tshiva keln

          But we have always had a unified baseline of stats so I honestly don’t understand the issue? I’ve always felt a gretchin is different to a space marine, which is different to an Eldar, etc which is represented by key stats and special rules. Even a monster like a carnifex is differentiated the same way but with an additional set of monster special rules. In the new edition (from what I’ve seen) it is exactly the same. The only difference is stats are no longer capped at 10 (which actually adds more room for flavour, not less) and instead on USRs you need to look up they have a slightly different name and appear on the sheet. That doesn’t make it less flavourful either, just easier to use. You could even say slightly more flavour as the name is fitting to the model and why they have the rule rather than the generic general rule name of old.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        The units do all feel the same. I miss the vehicle damage chart which was very cinematic. MCs were overpowered, I think they needed a cinematic damage chart of their own. Vehicles need an armour save so I am happy they got one.

        If they introduced charts for both, making it possible, though unlikely, to one shot a vehicle or incapacitate a MC, it would go a long way to making the units feel different and the game exciting. Grinding through a large number of wounds is just tedious.

        Also vehicles fighting in h2h just feels wrong. Not being able to tank shock through grots in a Land Raider feels wrong.

        • Tshiva keln

          I see your point but isn’t the same cinematic side shown by the damage chart? Stats get worse representing the damage. Also specific to each model so more cinematic than the generic chart (plus monsters get one too).

          I agree with the comment of tediously chipping away at wounds but against that heavy weapons do multiple wounds so can represent the big hit you’re after. I personally found vehicles died to one shot too often in 7th which is possibly why I like the new idea. Maybe they just needed to make the one shot harder. Could have if you roll a 6 for damage, roll again and add to score if you’re after that?

          I also agree vehicles in close combat it odd but it is a simpler abstract version of the tank shock etc. (Tank shock should hurt people more often imo – it’s fun!) Also if you’re trying to place meltabombs on the right spot of a tank that is moving and turning there probably is a real chance of it going wrong.

          Obviously have to wait and see until I’ve played a few games but I like most of what I see and trying to stay open minded about the rest!

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            The randomness of the damage chart was an example of good randomness. Modified to a degree by the AP of the weapon (non AP1 and 2 weapons not being able to explode a vehicle was real progress) felt realistic, and rolling on the chart was always nerve wracking and exciting.

            The predictable downgrading of a target as it loses wounds is not nearly as much fun.

            Some combination of both systems would most likely be the sweet spot. The higher number of wounds gives good granularity compared to hull points. If there was a damage chart as well, and degrading through damage, I reckon it would be perfect.

            Different critical damage charts for flyers, monstrous creatures and vehicles would add flavour whilst a unified statline and rules (as in 8th) would increase simplicity.

          • Tshiva keln

            Suppose it could be 2D6 if they didn’t want to introduce a new die. Like your idea of a bonus for rear shots. That’s one change I wasn’t keen on.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Same T all round, and player choosing casualty removal takes so much of the whole point of the game away. No value to outflanking any more, just line up and shoot or move to occupy objectives.

            These two changes have really killed my interest in the game.

          • Tshiva keln

            I don’t mind the casualty removal, perhaps because I started in 2nd edition which was the same. Always thought it was a bit odd to lose special weapons.
            “Oh no, look at all those tanks! And Bob’s been shot.”
            “Well pick up his lascannon trooper; you’ve been trained.”
            “Seriously Sarge?! You know how hard it is to bend down in power armour!”

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I always imagined with Guard etc the guy hadn’t been trained, and with Power Armour troops the gun was linked to the suit and wouldn’t work without a bit of tinkering. Theres always the chance the gun is destroyed.

            Beyond the fluff reasons though I think model placement added to tactics.

            What we really see in 8th is GW giving up on the idea of skirmish and going down the ‘battle level’ game route. 8th is really what Apocalypse should have been, a quick and less granular game aimed at big battles. Not sure it will scratch the same tactical itch that 40K does.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            And actually a 2d6 chart would be cool.

    • Defenestratus

      I agree 100%

      I’ve seen very little to like in 8th edition from the perspective of what I liked about 40k.

      It’s all very muted and bland. I’m still seething over the fact that there are units that can hit a WS10 avatar on a 2.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        Removing the WS chart really took away an important differentiation between units. Glass cannons could survive by being hard to hit in melee. Now that simply can’t happen without a special rule.

        I would have liked to see more extremes on the WS chart rather than taking it away.

    • Bellumvinco

      Why can you not imagine hundreds of grot climbing all over and inside a Warlord Titan, pulling on wires, loosening screw, bolts, and nuts. Causing havoc with it’s systems like gremlins. The image is awesome! I don’t believe the rules are bland, but perhaps your imagination is. ? Don’t be afraid of change my friend. Don’t trap your mind within a small box. Imagine reasons why its fun and you’ll have fun!

      • Nesred22 .

        I’m not sure I should have to imagine that the game is fun for it to be fun? Haha just kidding 🙂 But anyways I like 95% of what I’ve seen about 8th, I just feel they removed a few too many flavorful mechanics that helped differentiate between infantry, MCs and tanks.

  • Crevab

    Must be nice to have that kind of job security

    • Randy Randalman

      Do you not?

  • Crablezworth

    Jervis looks positively thrilled…

    • Shinnentai

      Bill Murray to play him in GW : The Film.

      • ZeeLobby

        I’d kind of lose respect for Bill Murray, lol.

  • “I guess no Warhammer Design Team shirt for Jervis.”

    He has transcended beyond the need for such petty mortal trappings. Jervis wears what Jervis wants and needs no further identification.

  • From what I’ve seen so far, it sounds like they’ve accomplished their aim. Whether or not it’ll be any fun–and whether or not I’ll care–remains to be seen.

    As someone who’s been around since 2nd Ed, I’m glad they’re finally paring down all the bloat that has crept into the game over the last five editions. If they can take the game back to the trim-but-complete status of about late 3rd/early 4th, I’ll be happier with them than I have been in over a decade.

    • alberto alderighi

      ye that can be the case they may aime to simply small step from a 2 ed kind game into a 3-4 ed. Maybe some stuff gona be fix on the way.

  • Wladimir Feldman

    Well, we had a big play day last Sunday in our club testing new rules and they work ways better than 7-th. For example we were able to have 2 games of 100 power points per side in about 4 hours while constantly checking and re-checking the rules. It was awsome. Rules are really streamlined, game is fun to play and it is almost no “bad” units in indexes (some units of course are better than the others but it’s totally different situation from 7-th where you had half a dosen of “auto-choice” units and a whole lot of garbage ones). Even new vehicles rules are working fine at the tabletop.

    I play since 5 ed and it is first time I can say that GW was able to create a really fun and balanced gamplay in 40k. It is so strange to see :).

    • Shinnentai

      I’ve seen accusations that vehicles are now too easy to take out for their points value because AT weapons hidden in infantry units can target them separately. Also that the damage potential of what were formerly template weapons has been decreased to the extent that infantry hordes have no effective counter – what do you think of this?

      (Might be too soon to make these observations since early games will be more about seeing what everything does rather than taking the most effective choices)

      • davepak

        This is …partially true, BUT some armies can do this much better than others. While marines and say DE (and few others) can put heavy weapons in troops, others (tau, nids, necrons, etc.) cant’.

        Yes, can a few lucky rolls allow that las cannon guy and the missile guy from two different tac squads take out my rhino with lucky rolls?
        Yes,. They could also fail.

        Vehicles are more durable than before, but not invulnerable. Which is exactly what we wanted.

        • Stealthbadger

          Just to add to that, in seventh you could one shot pretty much any vehicle. That’s really not fun for either player in my experience.

          It’s the same for the blasts in my view, although I admit I didn’t like this at first in theory. People seem to argue from the point they always got 6 models minimum under a large blast (though how opponents let this happen is beyond me). They seem to have skipped the scatter stage. I gave up taking battle cannons because they more often than not hit thin air on scatter for me. Now at least when they do hit they have thy also have the potential to to decimate a high wound target. This make sure me think a lot of people are trying to judge 8th based on how things played in 7th. A battle cannon is no longer horde control but a HVT whacker.

  • euansmith
    • bobrunnicles

      “I asked for a cup of tea thirty minutes ago, Robin. Where’s my tea?”

      • euansmith

        😀 😀 😀

  • ZeeLobby

    I mean in the end the game could have been “fixed” by simply removing the bloat of 6th/7th, and actually COSTING THINGS APPROPRIATELY. But I totally understand that it’s somewhat of a foreign concept to GW in general (and has been since their inception). In the end 8th will probably be better than 6th/7th, which is fine with me.

    • KingAceNumber1

      I can confirm that a lot of stuff sees point drops in the codices. Indexes were put together and playtested in a very short amount of time comparatively, most of the playtesting and balancing that the tournament folks did went into the codices. From what I have heard the indexes are intentionally sort of same-y, they picked that over the greater evil of large imbalances. Codices will be where the meat of 8th lies.

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah, it’ll be interesting to see how long the balance stays once real codices are released. Internal balance is still pretty meh in the current 5 books though.

        • Stealthbadger

          At least the new system MIGHT allow them to course correct. Even if you subscribe to better rules sell models surely the logical conclusion is good rules/points for all models means less chance of idle stock on modelsnobody whats.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, definitely. I mean I’m all for quicker fixes and adjustments, hopefully throughout the year.

          • Stealthbadger

            To be honest the codexes are my biggest fear right now as this is right where GW could veer back off into dodgy territory on any buffs they hand out. Tau you get two shooting phases per turn for no cost! Guard, you get to reroll ones if you take over 100 infantry models! Yay!!!!!

            Overall I really like what I’ve seen which is why the fear is probably more acute now than it ever was in 7th where you know things are already wacko.

          • ZeeLobby

            I definitely have a similar fear. While they’ve shown they can blow up a game, and rearrange everything into a semblance of balance, I’m just not sure they do much to preemptively head off balance issues. I’m super appreciative of them updating problems in the game, but I’m not really looking for a rollercoaster either. Hopefully solid playtesting continues prior to the editions releases to avoid:

            Month 1: Primaris get 500 free points,
            2 months of rampant stomping
            Month 4: Rule removed (doh)

          • Stealthbadger

            Based on the theory (I’ve yet to get some games in until end of the month) I’m not sorry to see 7th go, and I liked 7th despite its flaws. But it was so dependent on you and your opponent working together which I understand is not possible for everyone and even then some stuff was just so out of whack it was getting harder and harder to determine what was ‘reasonable’.

            On another note, not based anyign you’ve said here by the way, having lurked here over the last few weeks I think some see 8th as the glass being half empty (thus labelled ‘negative’) whereas I fall into the view of it being a glass half full (fanboiiiiiiiii).

            In reality both sides are right and both are wrong. At least the glass doesn’t seem to have pee in it anymore!

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean the whole pregame discussion was just a defense for a poorly written game. Haha. I mean yes, it could resolve issues prior to playing. But a good game should just be able to be played without it, and still be close and fun. The pregame should be limited to trying to create an awesome scenario, or organizing an offset narrative battle. Not deciding what units/combos are too OP to have fun playing with.

            Oh, and I totally agree. I’d say I fall in the middle right now. I love the reset, simplified rules, etc. Game wise I think it’s in a much better place than it has been for a while. On the fluff side it’s just non-stop cringes for me though. Fluff was key for getting me into 40K as a kid, so it’s really sad to see it flop around. Maybe it’ll all settle back into a more openly narrative and grim backdrop, but right now it just seems very drama-comic.

          • Stealthbadger

            The fluff conversations have been interesting. I’m not too invested in the fluff, overall I like it, but I’m in this for the game itself.

            What I find hard to grip is the idea certain fluff is bad because surely this is massively subjective. For example for me personally, I’ve read a lot of the books and without a doubt the stand out ones have been the first and only series and caiaphus cain series. I think every space marine book I’ve read has been dross. Even the Uriel Ventris ones (I have a smurf army). I’m so sick of constant training cage bouts and marines getting the feewings hurt by being overlooked for promotion.

            I mean seriously, I recall in one book one of the salamanders turns to chaos just because his buddy didn’t make the grade. Most of the time the marines come across like 12 year old boys arguing over who gets to be the leader of the gang.

            And this is where I wonder if people would agree with me or say the first and only stuff is poor whilst the marine stuff is epic.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean I think it really depends when you joined the hobby. A lot of the old fluff is great. One of my favorite reads was the old 3rd edition Tyranid codex. It was written completely from an Imperial viewpoint, and it left a lot of mystery in the game. How did they get around, how did they communicate, etc. It was actually really well written.

            Most of my favorite SM stuff is Horus Heresy. I don’t read much of the modern SM stuff as you’re right, it’s all pretty bleh.

            That said, most issues with the new fluff have to deal with the almost amateur writing style and plot holes/plugs. Nothing appears to be sacred anymore, and characters with models will be saved by miracles, while others die. There’s no longer stories of lost hope that make stories that end in success powerful. While enjoying literature is definitely a subjective thing, there is definitely objectively good and bad things to do when constructing a plot or characters to not make them seem shallow or dull. Sadly I feel like there’s just a lot more shallow/dull aspects to the writing these days. It’s something a pre-teen might really enjoy, but it’s like Twilight to my ears, lol.

          • Stealthbadger

            I suspect it’s because I’ve not read the 8th rule book fluff yet. I liked the gathering storm stuff, well thought is was ok at least, but it did feel really disjointed. I think I struggled most with the second book because I don’t play eldar so the names and some of what I presume were sacrosanct moments literally meant nothing to me. Plus I read these a few pages at a time so I’m not sure if that made it harder to get to or becuas it was just all over the place. First book was the best to me.

            Good catch on The HH stuff, I rea I think to about book twenty and that stuff was definitely better, to me at least, than the modern day marine stuff.

          • ZeeLobby

            It wasn’t just you. The stories would jump all over the place. 20 titans would die, and then it’d focus on a single land raider blowing it’s track. I mean it get beats to death, but it really was Matt Ward writing, lol. If he’s not putting ink to the page, he’s definitely behind the editors desk. He loves 3 things: plot holes, deus ex and ultramarines, lol.

            Yeah. HH was much less bolter porn and yay good guys. It definitely painted marines as these alien creatures that did what was “right” regardless of who got hurt. They did a great job depicting them in that series. One of the reasons I want it to end, so those authors can come back to writing more modern 40K stuff.

          • Stealthbadger

            I can see that if you remember a time when it was all Gaunt grade writing that you’d be underwhelmed by some of the newer stuff.

            Even as I wrote the last comment I had to consider whether I reall ‘enjoyed’ the gathering storm stuff and so I edited my response because overall it was just ok. If the previous stuff set your world on fire though, ok just isn’t really good enough and I can follow the disappointment being more acute.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I mean it’s definitely a personal issue. It’s just one that a lot of my friends who also started back then tend to share. If someone never read the new stuff, and was just getting into it, they might not really care, as they’d never known how good it was, haha. And yeah, the Gaunt stuff was just great. I still go back and reread them sometimes. I really wish BL put out more IG and other faction books. I know SM is their money maker, but man were those good. It’s one of the reasons I am so disinterested in AoS. Without the basic human perspective it just all seems so… cartoony.

          • Stealthbadger

            Agree with that. Biggest issue with Gaunt is that it’s not complete, unless I’ve missed something, I heard abnet got pulled into comic writing so we may never see the last book 🙁

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, it’s a shame. He’s still pumping out the occasional HH book. And he wrote one of the Beast Arises books. Not sure why he hasn’t saddled up and finished Gaunt. Might just be burnt out.

            Edit: Just looked at his wiki and it looks like he’s got a book called The Warmaster coming out in 2019 that’s part of the Gaunt series, so fingers crossed.

          • Stealthbadger

            Yeah sadly I think that ones been two years out since about 2015. You’ve probably read the same wiki as me me but I recall there was something about it being constantly pushed back. To be fair, it’s got to be difficult to write and end to that one that does justice to what came before. Killing Gaunt could be controversial but then people may also not buy the ‘and the chaos was vanquished and they all lived happily ever after’.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            When it ends I hope they’ll cover the unification wars on Terra. The little nuggets of fluff about that in the HH black books are great. I really want a game set in that era.

          • ZeeLobby

            That would be amazing. A mix between 30K and Darkage: mutants, genebred killers, etc. Would be so cool. If they can avoid letting Ward touch it, it’d be gold.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I’d give up my job and go work for GW to write this stuff myself!

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. If you do. Take me with you!

  • VTigger

    I’m guessing that they don’t mention that this is very similar to the rules system that Andy Chambers wanted to convert 40k to when he left GW to design the rules for Starship Troopers TMG.

    Similarities….

    – Simplified system
    – Flat to hit
    – Widely varying movement profiles – Very mobile game
    – Things die very fast
    – Strategies/Command system
    – Many different deployment setups (although SST had a very cool strategy system where each player chose a strategy pre-game, and the combination of strategies chosen by each player dictated what the battlefield would look like)
    – Tunneling (though 40k copied this in a watered down way a few editions ago)
    – Armor Save modifiers (plus very strong weapons ignore all saves)

    SST was a far superior game, so I’m glad to see GW moving in the direction that Andy wanted to take 40k.

    • Dennis J. Pechavar

      I miss Andy Chambers.

  • Muninwing

    “Putting the rules you need to play in front of the player when they need them – datasheets.”

    bookmarks did that too.

    and now that you have to bookmark the datasheets anyway, there’s no change.

    praising a lateral move as a step forward is usually a sign of an inept developer.

    • Stealthbadger

      I think the point is that for one unit you used to need several bookmarks. For example a ministorum priest might need one each for zealot (and then hatred and fearless), refractor field, war hymns, each weapon he can be equipped with, plus any other rules I’ve forgotten. Now they’re right in front of you.

      There are still some weird things though like ATSKNF which are linked to another page but overall it seems to me a much better system.

      • Muninwing

        except that now you need multiple pages because it’s not guaranteed that the USR is now doing the same thing that the other units with a similar USR have.

        before it was one rule that you learned. you’d thumb back to it until you memorized it. now, you need to potentially memorize each individual incarnation of the rule and how it might work differently for different factions or units.

        AoS has this issue with shields. each unit seems to have a different effect for what was once a single piece of equipment.

        if you are printing out the datasheets, you could do the same with the USRs that you use and use a highlighter. same with the army-wide rules (which are still a thing in 41k).

        it’s a lateral move. the number of rules is actually increased, the number of locations they appear has actually increased, it is just organized by unit instead of in one place. and they’ve hyped it up enough to make it sound like they’ve made a real change, but it’s nothing significant.

        • Stealthbadger

          Not sure I follow here, you don’t need to memorise each rule. It’s there on the data sheet, in front of you. The rules for the priest are now in one place, not 5 or 6. Man you should see the old guard codex, it was a proper pig for that kind of thing. The new index is waaaay simpler.

          • Muninwing

            but do you spread out the sheets? do you have to thumb through all these pages you’ve brought? are they still in the book, so you need to flip through the book anyway?

            each datasheet is in a different place. so it’s the same flipping.

          • Stealthbadger

            Yes but once you get to the data sheet it’s all there, unit stats, weapons stats, and special rules. By flipping to one page in the index you get everything. In the old codex, getting the unit page was just the start of your adventure through the codex AND often the big rule book.

          • Stealthbadger
          • Stealthbadger

            To this, (sorry couldn’t find the priest one) but look at all those new USR you have to look up http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f58fb58fcfbcdef116c2bcd7d6fb1d3578b8401ee3c85a831b3cc1167cdc75f4.png

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, def a big fan of this. That said they could have done all of this since 1st edition. There was nothing stopping them. Now I just wish the points were on there too, though I get why they might have removed them. My concern is should the lascannon on a predator be the same cost as a lascannon on space marine… I dunno. I can’t imagine they’d be identical in game’s effect.

          • Stealthbadger

            All true. Did I hear right thoguh that a melta for a guardsman costs less than a melta for a space marine? That’s a major improvement in my view given the platform durability and ability to employ it?

          • ZeeLobby

            Honestly been face down in my Tau, DE and Chaos, lol. If so that’s a good first step for sure. If things are costed actually dependent on their effect you won’t have dreadnaughts running around with half the attacks of others, or rhinos being cheaper for one faction over another, without there being actual reason and points behind it.

  • fenrisful2

    “Power Level ratings reflects the “average” power level of a unit between it’s minimum and maximum equipment options”

    This is a huge mistake concerning balance!