There is some randomness throughout the game - just because there is a little bit in this particular case doesn't suddenly make the entire game snakes and ladders.
A single 2d6 roll to see if an entire unit of up to 50 models does nothing during an entire phase under ideal circumstances on their own turn with no cause from the opposing player is the exact opposite of "a little bit" of randomness... especially if that phase is its supposed specialty.
nintura wrote: So instead of spreading your models out 2" to avoid blasts, now you gotta spread your units out so they don't get dragged in
How much you need to spread your models depends on how large the assaulting force is.
5 assault marines will not be able to cover very much. 30 orks or 9 bloodcrushers will. This is because as they wrap around to get into base to base with the nearest enemy, they have a better chance of 'clipping' an adjoining unit.
Here's the thing: In Sigmar you aren't allowed to "wrap around". If there are two of your guys between the guy you want to pile in and the enemy, then that guy is out of luck and stuck where he is.
That doesn't matter when the attacking unit and the assault looks similar to this:
The models at the edges of the stretched out charging unit will still end up closer to the Unit A and C after the charge than the initially charged unit in the middle. As a result they get to move towards those uninvolved units at the beginning of the 'fight' phase and if they are within 3" then they get to suck them into the combat without anything ever getting stuck. Unit A and C never get a change to overwatch either as the player of the red unit never declared a charge against them. This is a massive buff for giant but cheap melee units, especially now that templates are gone.
"Massive buff" implies people are going to mess up their positioning that poorly on a regular basis. All you need to do is spread out slightly more and stagger how far forwards your units are a little and the geometry is suddenly all wrong.
Gamgee wrote: So doesn't this just encourage gunlines to spread out?
Not that much space to spread out if you hide in a far corner.
Also kinda hard to use your shorter ranged guns of your ranged army efficiently or hold objectives when your units are all spread out from each other. Makes focus firing all that much harder, before even considering the possible additional LoS blocking terrain or more armor saves resulting from intervening terrain pieces.
And if you need to constantly move your ranged units you will suffer from the movement penalties e.g. for heavy weapons, which is quite bad for lower accuracy armies such as the IG.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Yuup. Melee is gonna be a flaming pile of trash, just as expected. Really looking forward to not using 8th rules for this ugly abomination of a phase.
Seriously. How do you go on living with such a negative view of life and everything in it.
Context applies here:
All week GW have been dropping sly hints that there's some huge new deal in assault that makes the nerf to combat being able to withdraw at will represents.
Then the assault preview comes out, and nope: What we already knew plus a niche-case way of doing a multi-charge whilst only facing one overwatch.
Good thing you have the much more assault army friendly 7th edition ruleset to fall back to now that you announced that you won't be playing 8th edition. . . . Pffffff, could barely keep a straight face while typing that.
A.k.a. the ruleset that doesn't allow every unit to freely disengage from melee so that the rest of the army can shove 50 billion shots down assaut unit's throat at point blank range? I know - absolutely horrible. Good thing 8th got this covered.
Well, sounds you found the perfect edition for your melee armies then. Have fun playing against 7th Edition Eldar, Tau overwatch and Riptides while your casualties get removed from the front of your unit ;-).
Bringing specific broken units form previous edition as justification for making melee even less viable in a new one? Smooth. Should I then follow your logic and claim that 7th edition melee was extremely viable since wulfen + thunderwolf cav would absolutely wreck faces turn 1-2? Oh well, I'm sure 8th will be perfectly balanced and won't have a single broken unit, god forbid a shooty one. Because this + glorified multicharge and a sizable amount of wishful thinking will somehow balance out melee units having no protection from shooting whatsoever.
There is some randomness throughout the game - just because there is a little bit in this particular case doesn't suddenly make the entire game snakes and ladders.
A single 2d6 roll to see if an entire unit does nothing during an entire phase under ideal circumstances is the exact opposite of "a little bit" of randomness... especially if that phase is its supposed specialty.
Precisely. 2D6 charge is a gotcha mechanic that requires "a plan B" whereas shooting armies can just keep on repeating plan A as much as they want.
Yup, I loathe no pre measuring. Let's sit and umm and ahh about if the distance is 8.1 inches or 7.9 inches for 20 minutes before I declare this charge!
If your opponent is vacilating for 20 minutes over a charge without premeasuring then he or she is a tfg who would also spend 40 minutes spacing out each unit premeasuring each fig to your squads to minimize your shooting's effectiveness . Bad tabletop manners are NOT a justification for bad game mechanics.
Pre-measuring is simply not a bad game mechanic - it works brilliantly in a huge variety of systems and boardgames - well they use squares, hexes etc.
It might not be clear if you take that single post in exculsion of the rest of the thread but the bad mechanic I'm referring to is completely random charge distances under ideal circumstances. Premeasuring is being used to justify that bad mechanics inclusion. Premeasuring is fine imo in future scifi games (less so in fantasy/histoircal games thematically) especially in low to mid model count games (less so imo with independently movable high model count games).
Depending on how they balance this it could be the end of every ranged army. The Imperial Guard and Tau get hit the hardest for sure though. This one rule might kill any ranged army. Especially depending on terrain placement.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
All assault oriented armies have one or more of the following traits:
- Durability
- Numbers
- Speed
- Transports
With the ranged damage decreased all across the board, these traits will be enough to bring a sizeable force in the face of your enemy. The disengage mechanic is absolutely needed, or the game would be too much stacked in favor of assault.
It is definitely stacked in favor of assault now. Let me tell you. I'm running everything I know about the rules through my head so far and with the know rules can't see any way for ranged armies to inflict enough damage at range or survive being charged.
Unless they give the Tau and IG a lot of unique rules they are not going to stand a chance with the default rules. Tau will definitely need buffed Kroot and Vespid to have any chance now and I see that as likely to happen as the moon is to be replaced by the sun tomorrow.
In theory this prevents castling, but with the boards being so small there is no way to be mobile and spread out. This just prevents ranged armies from having any options in their moment to die and die.
ERJAK wrote: Didn't those editions also have no premeasuring? Wasn't that a thing?
Yeah, but anyone who played those editions enough can now accurately judge distances of up to 8 ft within an inch usually. I remember a store near me had an event where you had to guess the range of some prizes on the other side of a room - the most someone was off was 2". No premeasuring was largely just a thing which hurt new players; even the vets bad at judging distance would surreptitiously use their forearms and memorise how long those were. One of the most pointless rules before 6e, and one of the few great changes 6e brought along.
Ha ha, yea those guys used magic to predict distance, they totally never checked 2" coherency and glanced at the tape, or they never would do a thing like measure vehicle hulls or realize standard bases were 1" diameter in order to estimate distances using models like a key. Yea, they were just awesome! It's not like we know the table is 48" wide and measured 12" deployment zones then watched them move 6". Nah, they were totally wizards.
OR
There was a lot of shady [MOD EDIT - Do not circumvent the expletive filter - Alpharius] from lack of pre measuring. Besides, it's worse game design for someone with better vision, eyesight or whose played for years to have an edge on Timmy who's never played.
theocracity wrote: Forcing ranged armies to spread out prevents castling, affects their ability to focus fire and makes them more vulnerable to flankers.
Seems like a fine trade off to me.
Yep, this is basically what I'm taking away from the new rules as well. Especially because being spread out also makes it harder for other units to effectively help out a disengaging unit (particularly as horde infantry killing firepower tends to be more short ranged).
Both my Wolves, GKs and ally IG units as well as the Tau army I plan to build for the next edition will sure be interesting to play.
There is some randomness throughout the game - just because there is a little bit in this particular case doesn't suddenly make the entire game snakes and ladders.
A single 2d6 roll to see if an entire unit does nothing during an entire phase under ideal circumstances is the exact opposite of "a little bit" of randomness... especially if that phase is its supposed specialty.
And you only have one unit? You can't affect the chances of success through positioning? You have confirmation that there aren't other abilities / wargear / etc to further affect this (given that AoS has plenty that would be a surprise)?
Is it stupid that a tank can miss a shot? Uhh, I rolled one dice and this unit did nothing, what a bad mechanic!
As I said, you're free to not like it, just don't pretend it's for some universal truth that people who do like it are violating. That's nonsensical
casvalremdeikun wrote: So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.
The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.
No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?
Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.
I think I understand it now. If there are multiple combats going on, you each select a unit from any of those combats and make your attacks. Then select a different unit. From the looks of it, the player whose turn it is always chooses first. So if there is only one combat, the turn player goes first.
Overall, I am fine with this. Especially if my Death Company are going to be able to freely bounce into another combat and continue to wreck face. I am hoping Power Fists do additional wounds. Same with Thunder Hammers, though with Concussive gone, I wonder how those two weapons will be differentiated.
Looks like I will need to make Pedro Kantor a Command Squad to run with him. Pistols and Power Weapons for everyone. Possibly some Power Fists. That or he will be rolling with a Terminator Squad in a Land Raider Crusader.
Your making the mistake of assuming things will remain the same as they are now. My bet is they go back to 2nd ed and no longer double strength. A power fist could be +3 strength -2 rend while a thunder hammer could be +4 strength -3 rend. OR they could both be +X strength but one does more rend.
Oh I fully expect them to be different. The way they talked about them being Unwieldy makes me think a -1 to Attack for both. Now that attack strength isn't capped, Fists and Hammers could do things like x2 for the Fist and x2+1 for the hammer. Or Concussive could reduce the WS of the target (they are stunned by the impact, so they strike confusingly).
I am looking forward to more stats. Swords probably have a -1 Rend or -2 Rend (assuming Chainswords are differentiated from plain CCWs by giving them a -1 Rend).
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
I think the bigger issue is that no other game really handles clost combat the way GW does in general. Most just have you use normal movement to get into CC range and no "locking" of units in CC, if such is applicable. Flames of War had a distinct assault phase like 40k with set movement, but also isnt trying to micromanage every single infantryman's positioning either, it's an entire platoon acting as a unit, along with dramatically more dangerous over watch effects (essentially full normal shooting and then 5 hits on the assaulting unit will stop the assault dead as the assaulter is now Pinned Down).
It's not even surprising. Then like the dark Eldar nerf which killed theirs sales no more model support and no more Tau. Would be mad if it wasn't so predictable.
People need to consider the benefit of assault being an additional phase. Is it random? yes, but some units are good at everything, like marines, whereas fire warriors only do shooting. So while assault is random that marine gets to move, shoot effectively and attempt a valid assault. A firewarrior is committing suicide by assaulting most things, that gives the units that are good at assault more actions. Some units only assault though is the quip, but units that only assault have things like Ere We Go, fleet, dunestrider etc etc. Units made for assault RARELY fail charges, I Honestly can't remember failing an assault distance with my DE, die to overwatch sure, but making the range is easy with transports, premeasure and fleet.
It's also BS to compare random charges to the shooting consistency in the game. Yea, I get to shoot my Guardsmen turn 1, but I generally have a shot or two. Your ork gets to shoot once in range, shoot in combat BUT he also gets 4 attacks a piece in HTH, in each turn.There is a reason why all decent deathstars in 40k currently are assault based. Assault even in 7th is WAY more efficient.
And you only have one unit? You can't affect the chances of success through positioning? You have confirmation that there aren't other abilities / wargear / etc to further affect this (given that AoS has plenty that would be a surprise)?
Is it stupid that a tank can miss a shot? Uhh, I rolled one dice and this unit did nothing, what a bad mechanic!
As I said, you're free to not like it, just don't pretend it's for some universal truth that people who do like it are violating. That's nonsensical
Positioning can only worsen the 2d6 die roll, not improve it. 2d6 is already under ideal circumstances. To my knowledge, there is no inherent bonus to charging down hill or having a rotund model roll instead that improves that basic 2d6. You can only probably take gear for some units in some armies to help for points. Positioning can only worsen your chances below 2d6.
As for your tank missing a shot, that's an apples to oranges comparison. A model can roll a 1 and miss its melee attack just like the tank. The difference is that the tank doesn't need to wade through 1+ turns of risk free enemy melee attacks and possibly get destroyed first just to make completely random roll to see if it can shoot in the for the first time on a subsequent turn... and then miss.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
And you only have one unit? You can't affect the chances of success through positioning? You have confirmation that there aren't other abilities / wargear / etc to further affect this (given that AoS has plenty that would be a surprise)?
Is it stupid that a tank can miss a shot? Uhh, I rolled one dice and this unit did nothing, what a bad mechanic!
As I said, you're free to not like it, just don't pretend it's for some universal truth that people who do like it are violating. That's nonsensical
Positioning can only worsen the 2d6 die roll, not improve it. 2d6 is already under ideal circumstances. To my knowledge, there is no inherent bonus to charging down hill or having a rotund model roll instead that improves that basic 2d6. You can only probably take gear for some units in some armies to help for points. Positioning can only worsen your chances below 2d6.
As for your tank missing a shot, that's an apples to oranges comparison. A model can roll a 1 and miss its melee attack just like the tank. The difference is that the tank doesn't need to wade through 1+ turns of risk free enemy melee attacks and possibly get destroyed first just to make completely random roll to see if it can shoot in the for the first time on a subsequent turn... and then miss.
You can improve your chances by simply... being closer when you try to charge?
It's not comparing Apples to oranges at all. It's directly referring to your statement. One roll of the dice can make that unit completely ineffective for a turn. It wouldn't make the slightest difference even if there wasn't that equivalency because there is nothing inherently wrong in that situation anyway.
casvalremdeikun wrote: So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.
The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.
No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?
Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.
I think I understand it now. If there are multiple combats going on, you each select a unit from any of those combats and make your attacks. Then select a different unit. From the looks of it, the player whose turn it is always chooses first. So if there is only one combat, the turn player goes first.
Overall, I am fine with this. Especially if my Death Company are going to be able to freely bounce into another combat and continue to wreck face. I am hoping Power Fists do additional wounds. Same with Thunder Hammers, though with Concussive gone, I wonder how those two weapons will be differentiated.
Looks like I will need to make Pedro Kantor a Command Squad to run with him. Pistols and Power Weapons for everyone. Possibly some Power Fists. That or he will be rolling with a Terminator Squad in a Land Raider Crusader.
Your making the mistake of assuming things will remain the same as they are now. My bet is they go back to 2nd ed and no longer double strength. A power fist could be +3 strength -2 rend while a thunder hammer could be +4 strength -3 rend. OR they could both be +X strength but one does more rend.
Oh I fully expect them to be different. The way they talked about them being Unwieldy makes me think a -1 to Attack for both. Now that attack strength isn't capped, Fists and Hammers could do things like x2 for the Fist and x2+1 for the hammer. Or Concussive could reduce the WS of the target (they are stunned by the impact, so they strike confusingly).
I am looking forward to more stats. Swords probably have a -1 Rend or -2 Rend (assuming Chainswords are differentiated from plain CCWs by giving them a -1 Rend).
Just my bet here but I am banking on flat addition modifiers. I doubt we will see x2 anymore. It's way more consistent to just say a fist adds say +3 st with a -2 rend because now it's worth 25pts to whoever is using it unlike now, where a guardsmen gets screwed royally. It also adds more granularity, a guardsmen with a fist would be s6 while a marine s7 while a custode s8 etc etc.
BTW I hope chainswords are rend 1 as well. In second they were s4 rend 1 while a power sword was s6 rend 2 and an axe was s7 rend 3, swords could parry. I don't like flat strength from the weapons but I did like that they all had different armor piercing properties.
And the jump pack troopers suffering from the same problem jump up and down in the air in front of the enemy shooting their pistols I presume? Just selectively picking one unit type and constructing a strawman (especially considering I didn't even mention bikes) to dismiss my point won't do. Nor did you adress the concern and issue of just arbitarily banning units starting the game on the board and normally moving to the enemy from assaulting them despite being in range and theeeeen them just magically being able to do so in round 2.
So...when you said that people were going to complain about A B or C, what you really meant was that YOU were going to complain about it. You should be more honest if you want to participate on a discussion forum.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
JohnnyHell wrote: The Fight Phase sounds kinda fun. Initiative is now 'take it if you want it, but you'll get to go 2nd somewhere else'. Adds a tactical level. I'll be intrigued to see how it plays out.
It is my favorite thing about AoS. The extra layer of chargers go first will make it even more interesting.
And the jump pack troopers suffering from the same problem jump up and down in the air in front of the enemy shooting their pistols I presume? Just selectively picking one unit type and constructing a strawman (especially considering I didn't even mention bikes) to dismiss my point won't do. Nor did you adress the concern and issue of just arbitarily banning units starting the game on the board and normally moving to the enemy from assaulting them despite being in range and theeeeen them just magically being able to do so in round 2.
So...when you said that people were going to complain about A B or C, what you really meant was that YOU were going to complain about it. You should be more honest if you want to participate on a discussion forum.
Lies are bad wrong. badong, even. Do better.
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] while failing at humor is also bad forum etiquette. Do better.
Yeah based on the rules we have so far without a couple of pages of faction rules or rail/pulse weapons being much better than those shown so far Tau are done as a viable army, which was entirely expected when I saw who was playtesting.
On the up side my D.Eldar and Harlies should be much better .... Oh hang on that will depend on how they deal with what we're High WS&I assault armies.
I wonder given how much is being copy pasted from AoS will we get there wonderful tactics like the pretzel of doom, the conga line of command and the rest of the abuses of coherency.
casvalremdeikun wrote: So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.
The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.
No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?
Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.
I think I understand it now. If there are multiple combats going on, you each select a unit from any of those combats and make your attacks. Then select a different unit. From the looks of it, the player whose turn it is always chooses first. So if there is only one combat, the turn player goes first.
Overall, I am fine with this. Especially if my Death Company are going to be able to freely bounce into another combat and continue to wreck face. I am hoping Power Fists do additional wounds. Same with Thunder Hammers, though with Concussive gone, I wonder how those two weapons will be differentiated.
Looks like I will need to make Pedro Kantor a Command Squad to run with him. Pistols and Power Weapons for everyone. Possibly some Power Fists. That or he will be rolling with a Terminator Squad in a Land Raider Crusader.
Your making the mistake of assuming things will remain the same as they are now. My bet is they go back to 2nd ed and no longer double strength. A power fist could be +3 strength -2 rend while a thunder hammer could be +4 strength -3 rend. OR they could both be +X strength but one does more rend.
Oh I fully expect them to be different. The way they talked about them being Unwieldy makes me think a -1 to Attack for both. Now that attack strength isn't capped, Fists and Hammers could do things like x2 for the Fist and x2+1 for the hammer. Or Concussive could reduce the WS of the target (they are stunned by the impact, so they strike confusingly).
I am looking forward to more stats. Swords probably have a -1 Rend or -2 Rend (assuming Chainswords are differentiated from plain CCWs by giving them a -1 Rend).
Just my bet here but I am banking on flat addition modifiers. I doubt we will see x2 anymore. It's way more consistent to just say a fist adds say +3 st with a -2 rend because now it's worth 25pts to whoever is using it unlike now, where a guardsmen gets screwed royally. It also adds more granularity, a guardsmen with a fist would be s6 while a marine s7 while a custode s8 etc etc.
BTW I hope chainswords are rend 1 as well. In second they were s4 rend 1 while a power sword was s6 rend 2 and an axe was s7 rend 3, swords could parry. I don't like flat strength from the weapons but I did like that they all had different armor piercing properties.
I would rather see wargear costed differently for different units. S+3 rend -2 is still not equally valuable to all units because there are still differences in number of attacks, base strength, and durability. As well as depending on standard toughness, if instant death is no longer at thing, if most things are say T4 the jump from S6 to S7 is not that big a deal (assuming it still wounds on a 2+). I mean based on your logic a S3 power sword hitting on a 4+ is worth the same thing as a S4 power sword hitting on a 2+.
The best solution is to cost things differently for individual units. Which I truly hope happens, because the value of each weapon differs for each unit.
It's not even surprising. Then like the dark Eldar nerf which killed theirs sales no more model support and no more Tau. Would be mad if it wasn't so predictable.
while I'm not a fan of new consolidations into CC with this pile in move, and think it's a big step backwards, methinks we are being a tad melodramatic.
Tau have always been a relatively well supported army, have gotten a codex update every edition but 5th, and were always seen as a strong and highly competitive army in every edition except the second half of 5th.
They have gotten gobs of new and powerful toys over the last three or four years, more so than many other armies, and extrapolating a single core rules change to being the death of Tau and their support as a product line is a wee bit silly, particularly when Tau have more tools to mitigate this than some other armies (through suit mobility, decently armored skimmer transports, low enough numbers to keep board space open for maneuver, lack of reliance on mobility stifling infantry heavy weapons, etc).
Will this change suck for Tau? Almost certainly. Will Tau suffer the most for it? No. Will it destroy the Tau as an army so bad they'll be relegated to SoB status? No.
You can improve your chances by simply... being closer when you try to charge?
It's not comparing Apples to oranges at all. It's directly referring to your statement. One roll of the dice can make that unit completely ineffective for a turn. It wouldn't make the slightest difference even if there wasn't that equivalency because there is nothing inherently wrong in that situation anyway.
In shooting, you can improve your chances by being closer to get more models in rnage (both yours and the opponents)... but that isn't what we're talking about. In shooting, you dont have a high variability completely random roll to see if you can shoot ANY model at all.
As for one roll making a whole unit ineffective in shooting, that's completely wrong. You roll bad on two dice then you miss two dice worth of shots. Your heavy bolter missing two shots doesn't mean the whole rest of the squad does nothing in shooting as well. One bad 2d6 roll at most makes one model's shooting for one weapon ineffective, not every weapon in an entire unit or even just one model for your tank example in most cases. Shooting isn't an all or nothing single 2d6 roll for the entire unit just to see if they can shoot in the first place. You are right though about it not being apples to oranges though. I was mistaken and being too generous as it's closer to apples and basketballs.
Units that activate gain a free 3″ move towards the closest enemy. This can be used to get within 1″ of other enemy units, if you’re cunning, dragging more foes into the melee and preventing them from shooting next turn, even if you didn’t charge them directly (giving them no chance to overwatch). Enemy gun lines will need to be careful about how they position their supporting units, so as to avoid getting dragged into the fight too.
Another thing we have seen is that hit rolls are now fixed. This has the effect of making dedicated combat units generally hit on a 3+, while models representing the most competent warriors of the 41st Millennium (Guilliman, the Swarmlord, Ghazghkull Thraka, to name but a few) will now hit on 2+!
Close combat weapons (which we’ll look at in more detail in future) also gain new rules – some will slice through armour easily, while others will hit with enough force to cause deal multiple wounds that can cripple or kill even powerful enemy models.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
Monopoly?
Every d6 based board game ever.
I'm not sure if I should be encouraged by GW incorporating Shoots and Ladders levels of narrative forging into 40k combat.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
SeanDrake wrote: Yeah based on the rules we have so far without a couple of pages of faction rules or rail/pulse weapons being much better than those shown so far Tau are done as a viable army, which was entirely expected when I saw who was playtesting.
On the up side my D.Eldar and Harlies should be much better .... Oh hang on that will depend on how they deal with what we're High WS&I assault armies.
I wonder given how much is being copy pasted from AoS will we get there wonderful tactics like the pretzel of doom, the conga line of command and the rest of the abuses of coherency.
There is no way for you to know any of this. If say supporting fire still exists how are Tau obviously done? If they can buff overwatch like the can now? etc.
Just my bet here but I am banking on flat addition modifiers. I doubt we will see x2 anymore. It's way more consistent to just say a fist adds say +3 st with a -2 rend because now it's worth 25pts to whoever is using it unlike now, where a guardsmen gets screwed royally. It also adds more granularity, a guardsmen with a fist would be s6 while a marine s7 while a custode s8 etc etc.
Sounds probable. Also, now that ID likely is gone, but weapons can deal multiple wounds, the strength is no longer the only way to measure the hitting power. I'd expect power fists and such to end up with lower total strength than now but deal multiple wounds.
Does this mean you can declare a charge against unit X, who will fire overwatch, then charge them and in the fight phase use your 3" activation move to pull in another unit you didn't declare against? Robbing them of the opportunity to overwatch?
But in the same ruleset you're encouraged to declare multiple targets of a charge (and you're not allowed to move within 1" of a unit you haven't declared against during the charge phase)?
It'll be all about trying to minimise overwatch fire by picking a target to assault, while also dragging in other targets in the fight step? Weird. But I think I probably just don't get it
casvalremdeikun wrote: So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.
The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.
No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?
Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.
I think I understand it now. If there are multiple combats going on, you each select a unit from any of those combats and make your attacks. Then select a different unit. From the looks of it, the player whose turn it is always chooses first. So if there is only one combat, the turn player goes first.
Overall, I am fine with this. Especially if my Death Company are going to be able to freely bounce into another combat and continue to wreck face. I am hoping Power Fists do additional wounds. Same with Thunder Hammers, though with Concussive gone, I wonder how those two weapons will be differentiated.
Looks like I will need to make Pedro Kantor a Command Squad to run with him. Pistols and Power Weapons for everyone. Possibly some Power Fists. That or he will be rolling with a Terminator Squad in a Land Raider Crusader.
Your making the mistake of assuming things will remain the same as they are now. My bet is they go back to 2nd ed and no longer double strength. A power fist could be +3 strength -2 rend while a thunder hammer could be +4 strength -3 rend. OR they could both be +X strength but one does more rend.
Oh I fully expect them to be different. The way they talked about them being Unwieldy makes me think a -1 to Attack for both. Now that attack strength isn't capped, Fists and Hammers could do things like x2 for the Fist and x2+1 for the hammer. Or Concussive could reduce the WS of the target (they are stunned by the impact, so they strike confusingly).
I am looking forward to more stats. Swords probably have a -1 Rend or -2 Rend (assuming Chainswords are differentiated from plain CCWs by giving them a -1 Rend).
Just my bet here but I am banking on flat addition modifiers. I doubt we will see x2 anymore. It's way more consistent to just say a fist adds say +3 st with a -2 rend because now it's worth 25pts to whoever is using it unlike now, where a guardsmen gets screwed royally. It also adds more granularity, a guardsmen with a fist would be s6 while a marine s7 while a custode s8 etc etc.
BTW I hope chainswords are rend 1 as well. In second they were s4 rend 1 while a power sword was s6 rend 2 and an axe was s7 rend 3, swords could parry. I don't like flat strength from the weapons but I did like that they all had different armor piercing properties.
In your scenario, Axes are better than Fists in every way
My bet, Fist is +4 Str, -3 Rend. Thunder Hammer is +5 Str, -3 Rend that causes a wounded model to be -1 to CC attacks. Both would be -1 to Attack to represent their Unwieldy nature. That would be a buff to Guardsmen Power Fists. I do wonder how Axes and Mauls are going to be handled. But different armies should pay different prices for the same thing.
Bull0 wrote: Does this mean you can declare a charge against unit X, who will fire overwatch, then charge them and in the fight phase use your 3" activation move to pull in another unit you didn't declare against? Robbing them of the opportunity to overwatch?
But in the same ruleset you're encouraged to declare multiple targets of a charge (and you're not allowed to move within 1" of a unit you haven't declared against during the charge phase)?
It'll be all about trying to minimise overwatch fire by picking a target to assault, while also dragging in other targets in the fight step? Weird. But I think I probably just don't get it
It depends on a whole lot of things. Do charging models need to move their full distance? End as close as possible to the target of the charge? Move in straight lines? The 3" pile in sounds good, but may be hard to engineer depending on other rules.
You can improve your chances by simply... being closer when you try to charge?
It's not comparing Apples to oranges at all. It's directly referring to your statement. One roll of the dice can make that unit completely ineffective for a turn. It wouldn't make the slightest difference even if there wasn't that equivalency because there is nothing inherently wrong in that situation anyway.
In shooting, you can improve your chances by being closer to get more models in rnage (both yours and the opponents)... but that isn't what we're talking about. In shooting, you dont have a high variability completely random roll to see if you can shoot ANY model at all.
As for one roll making a whole unit ineffective in shooting, that's completely wrong. You roll bad on two dice then you miss two dice worth of shots. Your heavy bolter missing two shots doesn't mean the whole rest of the squad does nothing in shooting as well. Shooting isn't an all or nothing single 2d6 roll for the entire unit just to see if they can shoot in the first place. You are right though about it not being apples to oranges though. I was mistaken and being too generous as it's closer to apples and basketballs.
You seem to be missing my point. I'm not making the case for shooting being better or worse. The 2d6 roll is not some hugely random thing that you can't affect.
You have control over who you declare charges with, You know the odds that it will succeed.
You can use this knowledge to make outcomes more or less likely through the application of tactics.
The likelihood of success and balance is a complete mystery because we are missing variables we need to calculate it so I'm Not wasting my time discussing it.
There is nothing inherently wrong in the mechanic. You just don't like it.
Red Corsair wrote: People need to consider the benefit of assault being an additional phase. Is it random? yes, but some units are good at everything, like marines, whereas fire warriors only do shooting. So while assault is random that marine gets to move, shoot effectively and attempt a valid assault. A firewarrior is committing suicide by assaulting most things, that gives the units that are good at assault more actions. Some units only assault though is the quip, but units that only assault have things like Ere We Go, fleet, dunestrider etc etc. Units made for assault RARELY fail charges, I Honestly can't remember failing an assault distance with my DE, die to overwatch sure, but making the range is easy with transports, premeasure and fleet.
This is probably the case because the assault units that saw play were the few that weren't completely poop.
Honestly, in 5th shooting was better than melee, 6th and 7th nerfed melee further. Even with all the tentative buffs to assault I have a hard time seeing how melee is going to roll all over shooting. Shooting units have the advantage of being inherently better at adapting to changing circumstances, as they have range. Remember that shooting units with heavy weapons are more mobile now than before as well.
It'll come down to what the transport rules are like, the stats of weapons, and the point costs of stuff. With falling back out of combat and the removal of Sweeping Advances I just don't see melee being lethal enough to be worth it as a strategy (i.e. you'll still charge when it's advantageous to do so, but you'll build your army around shooting, like the last 3 editions).
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
Monopoly?
Every d6 based board game ever.
kronk wrote:
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
It's not even surprising. Then like the dark Eldar nerf which killed theirs sales no more model support and no more Tau. Would be mad if it wasn't so predictable.
while I'm not a fan of new consolidations into CC with this pile in move, and think it's a big step backwards, methinks we are being a tad melodramatic.
Tau have always been a relatively well supported army, have gotten a codex update every edition but 5th, and were always seen as a strong and highly competitive army in every edition except the second half of 5th.
They have gotten gobs of new and powerful toys over the last three or four years, more so than many other armies, and extrapolating a single core rules change to being the death of Tau and their support as a product line is a wee bit silly, particularly when Tau have more tools to mitigate this than some other armies (through suit mobility, decently armored skimmer transports, low enough numbers to keep board space open for maneuver, lack of reliance on mobility stifling infantry heavy weapons, etc).
Will this change suck for Tau? Almost certainly. Will Tau suffer the most for it? No. Will it destroy the Tau as an army so bad they'll be relegated to SoB status? No.
The information is coming too fast for the naysayers to keep their stories straight
If you check the other 40k news thread, it's a three-page argument about how assault is dead in 8th edition! But simultaneously, in this thread, assault has been buffed so significantly that the Tau have been rendered completely obsolete as a faction! At this rate there won't be anyone left playing 40k...
If someone has already decided their faction is useless now, with how little information we have, I doubt anyone will be able to dissuade them! Neither side of this story has the real truth of the matter, yet.
Bull0 wrote: Does this mean you can declare a charge against unit X, who will fire overwatch, then charge them and in the fight phase use your 3" activation move to pull in another unit you didn't declare against? Robbing them of the opportunity to overwatch?
But in the same ruleset you're encouraged to declare multiple targets of a charge (and you're not allowed to move within 1" of a unit you haven't declared against during the charge phase)?
It'll be all about trying to minimise overwatch fire by picking a target to assault, while also dragging in other targets in the fight step? Weird. But I think I probably just don't get it
I think people are underestimating the new pile in multi-combat. It will be very, very easy to do for large units with a spread out line formation..
Yeeeeep, There's a formation that can include upto 300 orks in a single unit right now!....
hey wait a second, what happens for units that are composed of models with different move stats? can you put bikes at the front of slow moving assault units and have them pull things like terminators along for the ride?
casvalremdeikun wrote: So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.
The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.
No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?
Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.
I think I understand it now. If there are multiple combats going on, you each select a unit from any of those combats and make your attacks. Then select a different unit. From the looks of it, the player whose turn it is always chooses first. So if there is only one combat, the turn player goes first.
Overall, I am fine with this. Especially if my Death Company are going to be able to freely bounce into another combat and continue to wreck face. I am hoping Power Fists do additional wounds. Same with Thunder Hammers, though with Concussive gone, I wonder how those two weapons will be differentiated.
Looks like I will need to make Pedro Kantor a Command Squad to run with him. Pistols and Power Weapons for everyone. Possibly some Power Fists. That or he will be rolling with a Terminator Squad in a Land Raider Crusader.
Your making the mistake of assuming things will remain the same as they are now. My bet is they go back to 2nd ed and no longer double strength. A power fist could be +3 strength -2 rend while a thunder hammer could be +4 strength -3 rend. OR they could both be +X strength but one does more rend.
Oh I fully expect them to be different. The way they talked about them being Unwieldy makes me think a -1 to Attack for both. Now that attack strength isn't capped, Fists and Hammers could do things like x2 for the Fist and x2+1 for the hammer. Or Concussive could reduce the WS of the target (they are stunned by the impact, so they strike confusingly).
I am looking forward to more stats. Swords probably have a -1 Rend or -2 Rend (assuming Chainswords are differentiated from plain CCWs by giving them a -1 Rend).
Just my bet here but I am banking on flat addition modifiers. I doubt we will see x2 anymore. It's way more consistent to just say a fist adds say +3 st with a -2 rend because now it's worth 25pts to whoever is using it unlike now, where a guardsmen gets screwed royally. It also adds more granularity, a guardsmen with a fist would be s6 while a marine s7 while a custode s8 etc etc.
BTW I hope chainswords are rend 1 as well. In second they were s4 rend 1 while a power sword was s6 rend 2 and an axe was s7 rend 3, swords could parry. I don't like flat strength from the weapons but I did like that they all had different armor piercing properties.
I would rather see wargear costed differently for different units. S+3 rend -2 is still not equally valuable to all units because there are still differences in number of attacks, base strength, and durability. As well as depending on standard toughness, if instant death is no longer at thing, if most things are say T4 the jump from S6 to S7 is not that big a deal (assuming it still wounds on a 2+). I mean based on your logic a S3 power sword hitting on a 4+ is worth the same thing as a S4 power sword hitting on a 2+.
The best solution is to cost things differently for individual units. Which I truly hope happens, because the value of each weapon differs for each unit.
If the unit is priced appropriately for it's battlefield roll then you already have that compensation factored into it's initial cost. Makes zero sense for an equal upgrade to cost differently between two units. If the unit wielding it is better or worse then that should be taken care of in it's base cost.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
Sorry!
Secret codename (ala Blue Harvest for Star Wars) for 8th edition 40k confirmed!
casvalremdeikun wrote: So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.
The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.
No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?
Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.
I think I understand it now. If there are multiple combats going on, you each select a unit from any of those combats and make your attacks. Then select a different unit. From the looks of it, the player whose turn it is always chooses first. So if there is only one combat, the turn player goes first.
Overall, I am fine with this. Especially if my Death Company are going to be able to freely bounce into another combat and continue to wreck face. I am hoping Power Fists do additional wounds. Same with Thunder Hammers, though with Concussive gone, I wonder how those two weapons will be differentiated.
Looks like I will need to make Pedro Kantor a Command Squad to run with him. Pistols and Power Weapons for everyone. Possibly some Power Fists. That or he will be rolling with a Terminator Squad in a Land Raider Crusader.
Your making the mistake of assuming things will remain the same as they are now. My bet is they go back to 2nd ed and no longer double strength. A power fist could be +3 strength -2 rend while a thunder hammer could be +4 strength -3 rend. OR they could both be +X strength but one does more rend.
Oh I fully expect them to be different. The way they talked about them being Unwieldy makes me think a -1 to Attack for both. Now that attack strength isn't capped, Fists and Hammers could do things like x2 for the Fist and x2+1 for the hammer. Or Concussive could reduce the WS of the target (they are stunned by the impact, so they strike confusingly).
I am looking forward to more stats. Swords probably have a -1 Rend or -2 Rend (assuming Chainswords are differentiated from plain CCWs by giving them a -1 Rend).
Just my bet here but I am banking on flat addition modifiers. I doubt we will see x2 anymore. It's way more consistent to just say a fist adds say +3 st with a -2 rend because now it's worth 25pts to whoever is using it unlike now, where a guardsmen gets screwed royally. It also adds more granularity, a guardsmen with a fist would be s6 while a marine s7 while a custode s8 etc etc.
BTW I hope chainswords are rend 1 as well. In second they were s4 rend 1 while a power sword was s6 rend 2 and an axe was s7 rend 3, swords could parry. I don't like flat strength from the weapons but I did like that they all had different armor piercing properties.
I would rather see wargear costed differently for different units. S+3 rend -2 is still not equally valuable to all units because there are still differences in number of attacks, base strength, and durability. As well as depending on standard toughness, if instant death is no longer at thing, if most things are say T4 the jump from S6 to S7 is not that big a deal (assuming it still wounds on a 2+). I mean based on your logic a S3 power sword hitting on a 4+ is worth the same thing as a S4 power sword hitting on a 2+.
The best solution is to cost things differently for individual units. Which I truly hope happens, because the value of each weapon differs for each unit.
If the unit is priced appropriately for it's battlefield roll then you already have that compensation factored into it's initial cost. Makes zero sense for an equal upgrade to cost differently between two units. If the unit wielding it is better or worse then that should be taken care of in it's base cost.
Hrm, base cost cannot cover everything and reflects different things. A 25pt Powerfist on a marine is worth way more than the same 25pt powerfist on a Guardsmen, even a relatively expensive one like a Scion that roughly matches SM pricing for example.
I think people are underestimating the new pile in multi-combat. It will be very, very easy to do for large units with a spread out line formation..
Yeeeeep, There's a formation that can include upto 300 orks in a single unit right now!....
hey wait a second, what happens for units that are composed of models with different move stats? can you put bikes at the front of slow moving assault units and have them pull things like terminators along for the ride?
Remember characters won't join units anymore. I think heterogeneous units will be much less common. Deathwatch could be an exception tho.
Spoletta wrote: All assault oriented armies have one or more of the following traits:
- Durability
- Numbers
- Speed
- Transports
With the ranged damage decreased all across the board, these traits will be enough to bring a sizeable force in the face of your enemy. The disengage mechanic is absolutely needed, or the game would be too much stacked in favor of assault.
No! Charging needs to be M+D6 or else the game is completely trash and CC is nonviable!
casvalremdeikun wrote: So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.
The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.
No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?
Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.
I think I understand it now. If there are multiple combats going on, you each select a unit from any of those combats and make your attacks. Then select a different unit. From the looks of it, the player whose turn it is always chooses first. So if there is only one combat, the turn player goes first.
Overall, I am fine with this. Especially if my Death Company are going to be able to freely bounce into another combat and continue to wreck face. I am hoping Power Fists do additional wounds. Same with Thunder Hammers, though with Concussive gone, I wonder how those two weapons will be differentiated.
Looks like I will need to make Pedro Kantor a Command Squad to run with him. Pistols and Power Weapons for everyone. Possibly some Power Fists. That or he will be rolling with a Terminator Squad in a Land Raider Crusader.
Your making the mistake of assuming things will remain the same as they are now. My bet is they go back to 2nd ed and no longer double strength. A power fist could be +3 strength -2 rend while a thunder hammer could be +4 strength -3 rend. OR they could both be +X strength but one does more rend.
Oh I fully expect them to be different. The way they talked about them being Unwieldy makes me think a -1 to Attack for both. Now that attack strength isn't capped, Fists and Hammers could do things like x2 for the Fist and x2+1 for the hammer. Or Concussive could reduce the WS of the target (they are stunned by the impact, so they strike confusingly).
I am looking forward to more stats. Swords probably have a -1 Rend or -2 Rend (assuming Chainswords are differentiated from plain CCWs by giving them a -1 Rend).
Just my bet here but I am banking on flat addition modifiers. I doubt we will see x2 anymore. It's way more consistent to just say a fist adds say +3 st with a -2 rend because now it's worth 25pts to whoever is using it unlike now, where a guardsmen gets screwed royally. It also adds more granularity, a guardsmen with a fist would be s6 while a marine s7 while a custode s8 etc etc.
BTW I hope chainswords are rend 1 as well. In second they were s4 rend 1 while a power sword was s6 rend 2 and an axe was s7 rend 3, swords could parry. I don't like flat strength from the weapons but I did like that they all had different armor piercing properties.
I would rather see wargear costed differently for different units. S+3 rend -2 is still not equally valuable to all units because there are still differences in number of attacks, base strength, and durability. As well as depending on standard toughness, if instant death is no longer at thing, if most things are say T4 the jump from S6 to S7 is not that big a deal (assuming it still wounds on a 2+). I mean based on your logic a S3 power sword hitting on a 4+ is worth the same thing as a S4 power sword hitting on a 2+.
The best solution is to cost things differently for individual units. Which I truly hope happens, because the value of each weapon differs for each unit.
If the unit is priced appropriately for it's battlefield roll then you already have that compensation factored into it's initial cost. Makes zero sense for an equal upgrade to cost differently between two units. If the unit wielding it is better or worse then that should be taken care of in it's base cost.
This is clearly wrong, and always has been a problem in 40k. points costs are not granular enough on units for this to be true. Essentially how do you take into account how much the unit is improved by said wargear in its base cost without said wargear? What you are saying is that at 25 point powerfist on a 14 point marine and a 25 point fist on a 5 point guardsman is all taken into account by the 9 point difference. But that difference is fixed for all weapons, when the effectiveness given different weapons is not all the same. For instance right now a Techmarine and a Librarian cost the exact same, and combi-weapons on those models have identical costs, but a BS 5 combi-weapon, is 16% more effective than a BS 4 Combi-weapon. This leads to having upgrades that are basically useless on some models. It also insinuates that all types of power weapons are equally effective because they all cost the same on each model. Individually pricing wargear makes much more sense
Don't think it has been discussed before... but if you now only need to get within 1" of an enemy unit to engage it in melee... it means the reach of the pile in move to tie in another unit is effectively not just 3", but actually 4".
You can improve your chances by simply... being closer when you try to charge?
It's not comparing Apples to oranges at all. It's directly referring to your statement. One roll of the dice can make that unit completely ineffective for a turn. It wouldn't make the slightest difference even if there wasn't that equivalency because there is nothing inherently wrong in that situation anyway.
In shooting, you can improve your chances by being closer to get more models in rnage (both yours and the opponents)... but that isn't what we're talking about. In shooting, you dont have a high variability completely random roll to see if you can shoot ANY model at all.
And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Don't think it has been discussed before... but if you now only need to get within 1" of an enemy unit to engage it in melee... it means the reach of the pile in move to tie in another unit is effectively not just 3", but actually 4".
Yep.
also if it really is a near copy pasta of AOS, some melee weapons will have range. so most fists will be 1", a power spear could be 2-3". im hoping pistols get to be used in CC
As for one roll making a whole unit ineffective in shooting, that's completely wrong. You roll bad on two dice then you miss two dice worth of shots. Your heavy bolter missing two shots doesn't mean the whole rest of the squad does nothing in shooting as well. One bad 2d6 roll at most makes one model's shooting for one weapon ineffective, not every weapon in an entire unit or even just one model for your tank example in most cases. Shooting isn't an all or nothing single 2d6 roll for the entire unit just to see if they can shoot in the first place. You are right though about it not being apples to oranges though. I was mistaken and being too generous as it's closer to apples and basketballs.
Higher reward for charging, higher risk. The charge is also giving you a hefty movement which is huge for objective control and actually scoring points in a mission while the shooter is stuck stationary (except for those cursed eldar but even they don't get to move as far as a charge while shooting).
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.
And to be pedantic, any game without premeasuring means that "the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move..." (emphasis mine).
But that's hardly ideal unless I missed the section in On War where Clauswitz praised carpenters for their ability to predict the viability of a battlefield charges and artillery fire. But then, it's been a while since I read it.
All the random movement does is allow for surprise in an environment where everyone has perfect knowledge of the situation. Most tabletop wargames that aren't using hexes have a lot of trouble creating a situation where you can effectively and intuitively (and most of all quickly and without a ton of fuss) hide information from the other player. They are even worse at hiding information from both players. This is why Kriegspiel (the grand daddy of all war games) used a third party ref in place of, say, dice. But most companies are unwilling to ship humans in their starter sets, so we've got to make due with dice these days. But back to the initial point, the inclusion of a random charge is for a specific reason and is less to a player out of their charge, but more to make it impossible for faster armies to perfectly predict their end positions in such a way as to always avoid taking a charge from a unit with slower static move values. But in general, you don't want to punish a player for superior positioning either, so ideally you want something with a curve so that long shots are less likely. This curve allows for risk assessment in a way that even a smaller, linear variance doesn't. So why aren't gun ranges random? Because the kiting problem exists far less with most weapons (outside of the shortest ranged ones) and because those same enemies are using weapons with similar ranges (including the shortest ranged ones) and so unless they have a unit with significantly higher range (at which point LoS-blocking terrain will often become a determining factor) than their victim they have little to no onus to stay out of weapon range. Basically most units already have to get inside 24" to actually throw bones and knock the enemy down, there is no need to create a destabilizing mechanic to bring folks in to a fight there. But assault? With chargers striking first? You better believe every fast army has a vested interest in avoiding it with their shooty units and getting stuck in with their slicy units. In an environment with perfect knowledge of where every piece is, movement becomes a multi-faceted advantage in ways it shouldn't be but is because of our god's eye view. So some fog of war is needed to make our information imperfect. Lots of ways to do that, GW went with one with a bell curve (well peak) distribution to make edge-results less common while making the middle results a lot more reliable. May or may not be the perfect distribution, but to be certain, random movement in this case is a fine way to handle the fog of war where charging is concerned.
But I have a feeling this is a thing not many are willing to budge on. Personally? I played dwarfs in WFB for a long time and a combo of being a footslogging, cavalry-less race with many great hand-to-hand units meant that that 2d6 charge was a godsend. I could finally try to get the charge off on orcs, humans, and even elves. It meant I didn't just have to go with a straight defensive gunline 24/7. Probably helped that snake eyes meant I was only charging a total of 1" less than my original charge range, but I thought the change roll was a clever way of making faster armies less omniscient.
I'd point out that shooting units will deploy base to base most of the time, so it will be easier to spread out units. Their footprint will be much smaller. I do like the idea of formation and placement being more important in assault though.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.
Whoa whoa whoa we all know Stargrunt II is a terrible system and not venerated by virtually every miniatures wargames designer in the industry...
The SGII dice shifting/quality mechanic is still one of the best unified mechanics ever made.
They don't cover the Gather Storm Rule Books However. I just called Customer Service to get a refund for my Fracture of Biel-Tann that I bought a few weeks before 8th edition was confirmed. They said no, because it isn't a rule book but a narrative. Do they have a Facebook page where you can lodge a public complaint?
SeanDrake wrote: Yeah based on the rules we have so far without a couple of pages of faction rules or rail/pulse weapons being much better than those shown so far Tau are done as a viable army, which was entirely expected when I saw who was playtesting.
On the up side my D.Eldar and Harlies should be much better .... Oh hang on that will depend on how they deal with what we're High WS&I assault armies.
I wonder given how much is being copy pasted from AoS will we get there wonderful tactics like the pretzel of doom, the conga line of command and the rest of the abuses of coherency.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?
I think it was also confirmed in one of Pete Foley's tweets quite soon after the initial announcement of 8th Edition. Same with units being able to disembark and assault from (moving? don't remember exactly) vehicles.
Probably save to assume that it works like I heard of AoS where it seems to be the case that a character model within 2" of another (multi-model) unit can't be targeted directly, so you basically still tag along with your bodyguards but without the whole complex joining unit lock engage/disengage rule bloat, also making it easier for the character to leave the unit for charging/assaulting a different target. as well as being free to always choose a different target to shoot.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?
I think it was also confirmed in one of Pete Foley's tweets quite soon after the initial announcement of 8th Edition. Same with units being able to disembark and assault from (moving? don't remember exactly) vehicles.
i forget isnt there a Lookout mechanic in AOS?
its possible if characters cant join groups but can still get LOS attempts from a model near by.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?
I think it was also confirmed in one of Pete Foley's tweets quite soon after the initial announcement of 8th Edition. Same with units being able to disembark and assault from (moving? don't remember exactly) vehicles.
i forget isnt there a Lookout mechanic in AOS?
its possible if characters cant join groups but can still get LOS attempts from a model near by.
You can improve your chances by simply... being closer when you try to charge?
It's not comparing Apples to oranges at all. It's directly referring to your statement. One roll of the dice can make that unit completely ineffective for a turn. It wouldn't make the slightest difference even if there wasn't that equivalency because there is nothing inherently wrong in that situation anyway.
In shooting, you can improve your chances by being closer to get more models in rnage (both yours and the opponents)... but that isn't what we're talking about. In shooting, you dont have a high variability completely random roll to see if you can shoot ANY model at all.
And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.
Striking in your opponents turn will no longer be guaranteed. It will be your opponents choice whether they allow you to strike in their turn, or whether they leave combat in their movement phase.
And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.
Only if you cherry pick the units, the range, and completely ignore the fact that assault units must skip at a minimum one turn usually two to get to that first charge while simultaneously sustaining casualties themselves in the meantime. Is it increased? Sure...but that is to make up for the other things that been constant since 3rd... prior to the intro of completely random charges and overwatch.
And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.
Only if you cherry pick the units, the range, and completely ignore the fact that assault units must skip at a minimum one turn usually two to get to that first charge while simultaneously sustaining casualties themselves in the meantime. Is it increased? Sure...but that is to make up for the other things that been constant since 3rd... prior to the intro of completely random charges and overwatch.
Wellllllll charging out of transports is a thing soooooooooooo it shouldn't be nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
All the random movement does is allow for surprise in an environment where everyone has perfect knowledge of the situation. Most tabletop wargames that aren't using hexes have a lot of trouble creating a situation where you can effectively and intuitively (and most of all quickly and without a ton of fuss) hide information from the other player. They are even worse at hiding information from both players. This is why Kriegspiel (the grand daddy of all war games) used a third party ref in place of, say, dice. But most companies are unwilling to ship humans in their starter sets, so we've got to make due with dice these days. But back to the initial point, the inclusion of a random charge is for a specific reason and is less to a player out of their charge, but more to make it impossible for faster armies to perfectly predict their end positions in such a way as to always avoid taking a charge from a unit with slower static move values. But in general, you don't want to punish a player for superior positioning either, so ideally you want something with a curve so that long shots are less likely. This curve allows for risk assessment in a way that even a smaller, linear variance doesn't. So why aren't gun ranges random? Because the kiting problem exists far less with most weapons (outside of the shortest ranged ones) and because those same enemies are using weapons with similar ranges (including the shortest ranged ones) and so unless they have a unit with significantly higher range (at which point LoS-blocking terrain will often become a determining factor) than their victim they have little to no onus to stay out of weapon range. Basically most units already have to get inside 24" to actually throw bones and knock the enemy down, there is no need to create a destabilizing mechanic to bring folks in to a fight there. But assault? With chargers striking first? You better believe every fast army has a vested interest in avoiding it with their shooty units and getting stuck in with their slicy units. In an environment with perfect knowledge of where every piece is, movement becomes a multi-faceted advantage in ways it shouldn't be but is because of our god's eye view. So some fog of war is needed to make our information imperfect. Lots of ways to do that, GW went with one with a bell curve (well peak) distribution to make edge-results less common while making the middle results a lot more reliable. May or may not be the perfect distribution, but to be certain, random movement in this case is a fine way to handle the fog of war where charging is concerned.
This is such an intelligent, well-reasoned point that it almost restores my faith in the Dakka community.
Daedalus81 wrote: And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.
How many units get 2 attacks compared to units with rapid fire, autocannons, assault cannons, etc? Seems like a bold claim to say the least. Not to mention you don't necessarily hit in both players' turns any more and also the enemy can hit you back (twice, effectively - both overwatch and actual attacks)...
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Don't think it has been discussed before... but if you now only need to get within 1" of an enemy unit to engage it in melee... it means the reach of the pile in move to tie in another unit is effectively not just 3", but actually 4".
3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.
Daedalus81 wrote: And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.
How many units get 2 attacks compared to units with rapid fire, autocannons, assault cannons, etc? Seems like a bold claim to say the least. Not to mention you don't necessarily hit in both players' turns any more and also the enemy can hit you back (twice, effectively - both overwatch and actual attacks)...
.. and they can shoot you in the run up to your charge as it will likely take you at least a turn to make contact.
Desubot wrote: Wellllllll charging out of transports is a thing soooooooooooo it shouldn't be nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
will keep saying we dont have the full picture.
I agree. I sadly fell hook line and sinker for the well laid red herring trap of trying to compare apples to basketballs along with the overall related but not the same point of comparing total shooting effectiveness vs assault when the original point of contention was just the completely random charge as the default in ideal conditions. I'm not trying to say that one is overall more powerful than the other (except when I gullibly take the bait with horribad comparisons) but rather that random charges only add randomness and not depth nor tactics to the game. Sometime you pull off a ridiculous charge... and equally you screw up what should be no brainer 5 yard dashes. My point is that the penduulum swings too wildly between the two with little to no input on the part of the player in most cases.
And the jump pack troopers suffering from the same problem jump up and down in the air in front of the enemy shooting their pistols I presume? Just selectively picking one unit type and constructing a strawman (especially considering I didn't even mention bikes) to dismiss my point won't do. Nor did you adress the concern and issue of just arbitarily banning units starting the game on the board and normally moving to the enemy from assaulting them despite being in range and theeeeen them just magically being able to do so in round 2.
So...when you said that people were going to complain about A B or C, what you really meant was that YOU were going to complain about it. You should be more honest if you want to participate on a discussion forum.
Lies are bad wrong. badong, even. Do better.
"Badong" is the name of my WHAM! cover band.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?
I believe that was confirmed either in the announcement FAQ or one of the designers' tweets shortly thereafter.
Desubot wrote: Wellllllll charging out of transports is a thing soooooooooooo it shouldn't be nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
will keep saying we dont have the full picture.
I agree. I sadly fell hook line and sinker for the well laid red herring trap of trying to compare apples to basketballs along with the overall related but not the same point of comparing total shooting effectiveness vs assault when the original point of contention was just the completely random charge as the default in ideal conditions. I'm not trying to say that one is overall more powerful than the other (except when I gullibly take the bait) but rather that random charges only add randomness. Sometime you pull off a ridiculous charge... and equally you screw up what should be no brainer 5 yard dashes. My point is that the penduulum swings too wildly between the two with little to no input on the part of the player in most cases.
Well its true
i honestly do think that some things shouldn't be nearly as random. like bikes and jump packs should have momentum, meaning it should be a minimum move + D6 for random variable like say the jump pack guy didnt position right and undershot his jump trajectory. (m +d6)
i think certain things should have a better time advancing like a lumbering lemon russ should be slow but "consistent" if its normal movement was 4, then why is it getting to move up to 6 inchs more suddenly. but i dont necessarily think 2d6 is all that bad. sure shooting may have a bit more advantage over assaulting. but i think it wont be nearly as bad as a lot of the things that made charging bad from the last several additions may change. im thinking casualties will be removed from wherever you want. so no more hiding special weapons. this might make snipers actually very useful. i still haven't seen confirmation but its possible you might be able to charge after advancing which is a huge bonus for movement (3d6 charge) there should and could be compromise but im liking the spoilers so far. i happening to think AOS is a good game so take it with salt.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Don't think it has been discussed before... but if you now only need to get within 1" of an enemy unit to engage it in melee... it means the reach of the pile in move to tie in another unit is effectively not just 3", but actually 4".
3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.
You only get the 3 inch pile in if you successfully make it into 1" on the charge. If they follow the AoS wording, you can only move directly towards the closest enemy, which prevents you from just getting a full 3 inches of movement and surrounding the enemy. Now.. that's not to say they WILL follow that wording.. so who knows.
As much as the mechanics are following the AoS mechanics, there are numerous changes that they are improving upon that AoS was the lesson learned for.
So as I was getting caught p in the thread a few things crossed my mind on some changes that buffed assault so far:
1. Wounds don't pull from the front. This means less sudden increases in distance between an assault unit and it's target due to being shot or via Overwatch.
2. Rend values on basic weapons look like they're going to be mostly 0s. This means horde and lightly armoured assault units (Nids, Orks, Banshees, Dark Eldar) can weather shooting more, and also have an increased survival rate when being shot at.
3. Assaulting from transports seems to be in. While this doesn't directly help Nids (save for the Spore Pod), it does give most assault units an increased durability to getting in close enough safely before they start stabbing people.
4. Pile in to pull in enemy units is a nice buff to horde armies as well since it can help tie up multiple units more easily, allow people to assault transports to get a free pile-in on the disembarked occupants, ect. A mechanic for negating overwatch that doesn't cost Command Points or wargear upgrades is good and promotes tactics on both sides.
Random 2D6" is less offensive with the first two points in consideration as they were the biggest reason people would have trouble making charges in the old edition. Increased basic durability with the most common ranged weapons not negating saves means shooting lost some tooth so that assault units have an increased chance of making it into combat with more numbers. And the tactical push of the consolidation move allowing you to pile into nearby units helps decrease some strategies (castle and gunline) which may find the best option is to spread their forces out instead of building walls of models to protect the squishier things.
Now without seeing ALL the rules I can't promise that everything is as good as it looks right now, but I do feel assault is looking to have some buffs (especially if rend values are centered around melee weapons instead of ranged weapons) and shooting got toned back appropiately. Army building looks like it'll need a mix of assault and shooting units to be successful and that makes my little black heart very warm indeed.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Don't think it has been discussed before... but if you now only need to get within 1" of an enemy unit to engage it in melee... it means the reach of the pile in move to tie in another unit is effectively not just 3", but actually 4".
3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.
You only get the 3 inch pile in if you successfully make it into 1" on the charge. If they follow the AoS wording, you can only move directly towards the closest enemy, which prevents you from just getting a full 3 inches of movement and surrounding the enemy. Now.. that's not to say they WILL follow that wording.. so who knows.
As much as the mechanics are following the AoS mechanics, there are numerous changes that they are improving upon that AoS was the lesson learned for.
Underlined is not true. You have to move closer to the nearest enemy, but not directly. If I start 3" away from your model, and move laterally so now I am 2.5" away from him but also moved 90 degrees clockwise, that is a valid Pile In.
Being charged by a unit of the same point cost of the target is the same as being hit by a weapon that makes you lose 40% of your models and has the rule "Skip next turn or remove all models as casualties". Since there is no ranged weapon that powerful that does that kind of effect on a same cost target (even more in 8th) it stands to reason that assault must incur in higher risks to deliver such a blow.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Don't think it has been discussed before... but if you now only need to get within 1" of an enemy unit to engage it in melee... it means the reach of the pile in move to tie in another unit is effectively not just 3", but actually 4".
3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.
You only get the 3 inch pile in if you successfully make it into 1" on the charge. If they follow the AoS wording, you can only move directly towards the closest enemy, which prevents you from just getting a full 3 inches of movement and surrounding the enemy. Now.. that's not to say they WILL follow that wording.. so who knows.
As much as the mechanics are following the AoS mechanics, there are numerous changes that they are improving upon that AoS was the lesson learned for.
In AoS it's not "directly" towards, just 'towards' (i.e. you must finish the pile-in move closer to the closest enemy model. This means if you are 2" away you can move towards the closest model, and shimmy around them a bit, as long as you finish your move 0.1" closer. This way the front ranks can orbit around to allow the second ranks to get stuck in too.
If you're playing a defensive army it can be good to keep your formation tight and "tag" as many bases when you pile-in. If you are touching a model they cannot make any pile-in move that would allow them to get closer, and thus they cannot orbit around your base to make more room for others.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?
I think it was also confirmed in one of Pete Foley's tweets quite soon after the initial announcement of 8th Edition. Same with units being able to disembark and assault from (moving? don't remember exactly) vehicles.
i forget isnt there a Lookout mechanic in AOS?
its possible if characters cant join groups but can still get LOS attempts from a model near by.
Yep, just updated my post.
There is no Look Out Sir in AoS, except as a special rule of some models.
Also, you can target characters any time you want with extreme ease, that's why they have good saves and lot of wounds.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Don't think it has been discussed before... but if you now only need to get within 1" of an enemy unit to engage it in melee... it means the reach of the pile in move to tie in another unit is effectively not just 3", but actually 4".
3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.
You only get the 3 inch pile in if you successfully make it into 1" on the charge. If they follow the AoS wording, you can only move directly towards the closest enemy, which prevents you from just getting a full 3 inches of movement and surrounding the enemy. Now.. that's not to say they WILL follow that wording.. so who knows.
As much as the mechanics are following the AoS mechanics, there are numerous changes that they are improving upon that AoS was the lesson learned for.
Pretty sure AoS doesn't have the text "closest enemy" which is why a long charge can be sent around behind the unit and why people use the pile in to drag other units into assault.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.
A fair number of historicals games do it too. TooFat Lardies' Chain of Command (an excellent WW2 system) and Sharp Practice have diced movement, for example.
Like you said in the part I snipped out, randomized movement allows for some of the randomness and fog of war that get taken out of wargames because the tables have limited detail and the players have a top-down godlike view.
In real life, soldiers hesitate, they find unstable or difficult ground, etc.
Pretty sure AoS doesn't have the text "closest enemy" which is why a long charge can be sent around behind the unit and why people use the pile in to drag other units into assault.
Boomerang charges are a thing in AOS? Ughhh... thematic game mechanic fail if so and I hope its not ported over to Sighammer 40k.
ClockworkZion wrote: So as I was getting caught p in the thread a few things crossed my mind on some changes that buffed assault so far:
1. Wounds don't pull from the front. This means less sudden increases in distance between an assault unit and it's target due to being shot or via Overwatch.
2. Rend values on basic weapons look like they're going to be mostly 0s. This means horde and lightly armoured assault units (Nids, Orks, Banshees, Dark Eldar) can weather shooting more, and also have an increased survival rate when being shot at.
3. Assaulting from transports seems to be in. While this doesn't directly help Nids (save for the Spore Pod), it does give most assault units an increased durability to getting in close enough safely before they start stabbing people.
4. Pile in to pull in enemy units is a nice buff to horde armies as well since it can help tie up multiple units more easily, allow people to assault transports to get a free pile-in on the disembarked occupants, ect. A mechanic for negating overwatch that doesn't cost Command Points or wargear upgrades is good and promotes tactics on both sides.
Random 2D6" is less offensive with the first two points in consideration as they were the biggest reason people would have trouble making charges in the old edition. Increased basic durability with the most common ranged weapons not negating saves means shooting lost some tooth so that assault units have an increased chance of making it into combat with more numbers. And the tactical push of the consolidation move allowing you to pile into nearby units helps decrease some strategies (castle and gunline) which may find the best option is to spread their forces out instead of building walls of models to protect the squishier things.
Now without seeing ALL the rules I can't promise that everything is as good as it looks right now, but I do feel assault is looking to have some buffs (especially if rend values are centered around melee weapons instead of ranged weapons) and shooting got toned back appropiately. Army building looks like it'll need a mix of assault and shooting units to be successful and that makes my little black heart very warm indeed.
You forgot that you now get an extra 1" to every charge, making successful charges significantly more likely.
“Step 1: When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model. This will allow the models in the unit to get closer to the enemy in order to attack them.”
Edit - the above only applies to the pile in though. You can still "boomerang" on the charge in as long as the first model ends up within 1"
Pretty sure AoS doesn't have the text "closest enemy" which is why a long charge can be sent around behind the unit and why people use the pile in to drag other units into assault.
Except it does:
Age of Sigmar Core Rules wrote:Step 1: When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model. This will allow the models in the unit to get closer to the enemy in order to attack them.
Pretty sure AoS doesn't have the text "closest enemy" which is why a long charge can be sent around behind the unit and why people use the pile in to drag other units into assault.
Except it does:
Age of Sigmar Core Rules wrote:Step 1: When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model. This will allow the models in the unit to get closer to the enemy in order to attack them.
Edit: Beaten by KiloFiX
In GW's official video about piling in they show you how you can move models around instead of straight lines towards the enemy.
ClockworkZion wrote: So as I was getting caught p in the thread a few things crossed my mind on some changes that buffed assault so far:
1. Wounds don't pull from the front. This means less sudden increases in distance between an assault unit and it's target due to being shot or via Overwatch.
2. Rend values on basic weapons look like they're going to be mostly 0s. This means horde and lightly armoured assault units (Nids, Orks, Banshees, Dark Eldar) can weather shooting more, and also have an increased survival rate when being shot at.
3. Assaulting from transports seems to be in. While this doesn't directly help Nids (save for the Spore Pod), it does give most assault units an increased durability to getting in close enough safely before they start stabbing people.
4. Pile in to pull in enemy units is a nice buff to horde armies as well since it can help tie up multiple units more easily, allow people to assault transports to get a free pile-in on the disembarked occupants, ect. A mechanic for negating overwatch that doesn't cost Command Points or wargear upgrades is good and promotes tactics on both sides.
Random 2D6" is less offensive with the first two points in consideration as they were the biggest reason people would have trouble making charges in the old edition. Increased basic durability with the most common ranged weapons not negating saves means shooting lost some tooth so that assault units have an increased chance of making it into combat with more numbers. And the tactical push of the consolidation move allowing you to pile into nearby units helps decrease some strategies (castle and gunline) which may find the best option is to spread their forces out instead of building walls of models to protect the squishier things.
Now without seeing ALL the rules I can't promise that everything is as good as it looks right now, but I do feel assault is looking to have some buffs (especially if rend values are centered around melee weapons instead of ranged weapons) and shooting got toned back appropiately. Army building looks like it'll need a mix of assault and shooting units to be successful and that makes my little black heart very warm indeed.
You forgot that you now get an extra 1" to every charge, making successful charges significantly more likely.
True, true. I wasn't thinking about it as much as the other mechanics, 8" is now the avg charge range which is good too.
On a different note about ICs: if they can't join units how do they hitch rides on transports? Will they get retinues back to allow them to build command units to compensate at least?
ClockworkZion wrote: So as I was getting caught p in the thread a few things crossed my mind on some changes that buffed assault so far:
1. Wounds don't pull from the front. This means less sudden increases in distance between an assault unit and it's target due to being shot or via Overwatch.
2. Rend values on basic weapons look like they're going to be mostly 0s. This means horde and lightly armoured assault units (Nids, Orks, Banshees, Dark Eldar) can weather shooting more, and also have an increased survival rate when being shot at.
3. Assaulting from transports seems to be in. While this doesn't directly help Nids (save for the Spore Pod), it does give most assault units an increased durability to getting in close enough safely before they start stabbing people.
4. Pile in to pull in enemy units is a nice buff to horde armies as well since it can help tie up multiple units more easily, allow people to assault transports to get a free pile-in on the disembarked occupants, ect. A mechanic for negating overwatch that doesn't cost Command Points or wargear upgrades is good and promotes tactics on both sides.
I think the removal of templates is a big buff for horde armies and their larger units, and that synergizes with a couple of the points above.
davou wrote: just a heads up; but wounds being not pulled from the front has NOT yet been confirmed. Its speculative.
Speculation that has been said to come from the Foley tweets or Facebook posts. Granted without screencaps it's unconfirmed but seeing how much it was hated and how much bs came up from it I'd expect it to have gotten axed by the testing groups.
The pile in video and the text is consistent. You can indeed move models around IF they end up closer to your closest opposing model than when they started.
But you cannot try to pull another unit in through pile in if your model ends up further from your closest opposing model than when they started.
ClockworkZion wrote: So as I was getting caught p in the thread a few things crossed my mind on some changes that buffed assault so far:
1. Wounds don't pull from the front. This means less sudden increases in distance between an assault unit and it's target due to being shot or via Overwatch.
2. Rend values on basic weapons look like they're going to be mostly 0s. This means horde and lightly armoured assault units (Nids, Orks, Banshees, Dark Eldar) can weather shooting more, and also have an increased survival rate when being shot at.
3. Assaulting from transports seems to be in. While this doesn't directly help Nids (save for the Spore Pod), it does give most assault units an increased durability to getting in close enough safely before they start stabbing people.
4. Pile in to pull in enemy units is a nice buff to horde armies as well since it can help tie up multiple units more easily, allow people to assault transports to get a free pile-in on the disembarked occupants, ect. A mechanic for negating overwatch that doesn't cost Command Points or wargear upgrades is good and promotes tactics on both sides.
Random 2D6" is less offensive with the first two points in consideration as they were the biggest reason people would have trouble making charges in the old edition. Increased basic durability with the most common ranged weapons not negating saves means shooting lost some tooth so that assault units have an increased chance of making it into combat with more numbers. And the tactical push of the consolidation move allowing you to pile into nearby units helps decrease some strategies (castle and gunline) which may find the best option is to spread their forces out instead of building walls of models to protect the squishier things.
Now without seeing ALL the rules I can't promise that everything is as good as it looks right now, but I do feel assault is looking to have some buffs (especially if rend values are centered around melee weapons instead of ranged weapons) and shooting got toned back appropiately. Army building looks like it'll need a mix of assault and shooting units to be successful and that makes my little black heart very warm indeed.
You forgot that you now get an extra 1" to every charge, making successful charges significantly more likely.
True, true. I wasn't thinking about it as much as the other mechanics, 8" is now the avg charge range which is good too.
On a different note about ICs: if they can't join units how do they hitch rides on transports? Will they get retinues back to allow them to build command units to compensate at least?
ClockworkZion wrote: So as I was getting caught p in the thread a few things crossed my mind on some changes that buffed assault so far:
1. Wounds don't pull from the front. This means less sudden increases in distance between an assault unit and it's target due to being shot or via Overwatch.
2. Rend values on basic weapons look like they're going to be mostly 0s. This means horde and lightly armoured assault units (Nids, Orks, Banshees, Dark Eldar) can weather shooting more, and also have an increased survival rate when being shot at.
3. Assaulting from transports seems to be in. While this doesn't directly help Nids (save for the Spore Pod), it does give most assault units an increased durability to getting in close enough safely before they start stabbing people.
4. Pile in to pull in enemy units is a nice buff to horde armies as well since it can help tie up multiple units more easily, allow people to assault transports to get a free pile-in on the disembarked occupants, ect. A mechanic for negating overwatch that doesn't cost Command Points or wargear upgrades is good and promotes tactics on both sides.
I think the removal of templates is a big buff for horde armies and their larger units, and that synergizes with a couple of the points above.
Probably. With my Sisters horders were often an issue because flamer templates only become effective inside of charge range. That said there is likely a mechanic for determining how many models are hit that negates the need for templates like they did with the flamer.
That said, at the moment, it feels like the damage potential in the assault phase might be higher than from most shooting due to some of the changes.
ClockworkZion wrote: So as I was getting caught p in the thread a few things crossed my mind on some changes that buffed assault so far:
1. Wounds don't pull from the front. This means less sudden increases in distance between an assault unit and it's target due to being shot or via Overwatch.
2. Rend values on basic weapons look like they're going to be mostly 0s. This means horde and lightly armoured assault units (Nids, Orks, Banshees, Dark Eldar) can weather shooting more, and also have an increased survival rate when being shot at.
3. Assaulting from transports seems to be in. While this doesn't directly help Nids (save for the Spore Pod), it does give most assault units an increased durability to getting in close enough safely before they start stabbing people.
4. Pile in to pull in enemy units is a nice buff to horde armies as well since it can help tie up multiple units more easily, allow people to assault transports to get a free pile-in on the disembarked occupants, ect. A mechanic for negating overwatch that doesn't cost Command Points or wargear upgrades is good and promotes tactics on both sides.
Random 2D6" is less offensive with the first two points in consideration as they were the biggest reason people would have trouble making charges in the old edition. Increased basic durability with the most common ranged weapons not negating saves means shooting lost some tooth so that assault units have an increased chance of making it into combat with more numbers. And the tactical push of the consolidation move allowing you to pile into nearby units helps decrease some strategies (castle and gunline) which may find the best option is to spread their forces out instead of building walls of models to protect the squishier things.
Now without seeing ALL the rules I can't promise that everything is as good as it looks right now, but I do feel assault is looking to have some buffs (especially if rend values are centered around melee weapons instead of ranged weapons) and shooting got toned back appropiately. Army building looks like it'll need a mix of assault and shooting units to be successful and that makes my little black heart very warm indeed.
You forgot that you now get an extra 1" to every charge, making successful charges significantly more likely.
True, true. I wasn't thinking about it as much as the other mechanics, 8" is now the avg charge range which is good too.
On a different note about ICs: if they can't join units how do they hitch rides on transports? Will they get retinues back to allow them to build command units to compensate at least?
davou wrote: just a heads up; but wounds being not pulled from the front has NOT yet been confirmed. Its speculative.
To be fair, it was strongly hinted at by the presumably balance team staffer (wouldn't be surprised if it's Foley himself) on the Warhammer 40k facebook page. The same staffer dropped similar hints about there being some pile-in mechanic for close combat and how decisive and bloody the close combat face is going to be about two or three days ago... and we now know that those hints were absolutely correct.
At this point casualties still being removed from the front is far more unlikely to be the case than it being the choice of the player owning the unit (which is also the case in AoS).
On a different note about ICs: if they can't join units how do they hitch rides on transports? Will they get retinues back to allow them to build command units to compensate at least?
My guess is ICs being temporarily allowed to join and hitch a ride along with another unit. When they disembark I think they'll be split up again. Otherwise ICs would be damned to walk the entire distance on foot or get a transport just for themselves, both seem quite unlikely.
KiloFiX wrote: The pile in video and the text is consistent. You can indeed move models around IF they end up closer to your closest opposing model than when they started.
But you cannot try to pull another unit in through pile in if your model ends up further from your closest opposing model than when they started.
It's possible in certain situations. Large bases can make it work because of measuring. Units that can fly can jump over the unit they're locked in with, catching the unit behind. Back ranks that are 9" away from their target can wheel around, ending up 8" away but close to another unit.
It's unlikely a 5 man unit that is lined up in front of another 5 man unit will pull in anything else, but charging blobs and large base cavalry will often be able to snag multiple units more easily than you think.
ClockworkZion wrote: So as I was getting caught p in the thread a few things crossed my mind on some changes that buffed assault so far:
1. Wounds don't pull from the front. This means less sudden increases in distance between an assault unit and it's target due to being shot or via Overwatch.
2. Rend values on basic weapons look like they're going to be mostly 0s. This means horde and lightly armoured assault units (Nids, Orks, Banshees, Dark Eldar) can weather shooting more, and also have an increased survival rate when being shot at.
3. Assaulting from transports seems to be in. While this doesn't directly help Nids (save for the Spore Pod), it does give most assault units an increased durability to getting in close enough safely before they start stabbing people.
4. Pile in to pull in enemy units is a nice buff to horde armies as well since it can help tie up multiple units more easily, allow people to assault transports to get a free pile-in on the disembarked occupants, ect. A mechanic for negating overwatch that doesn't cost Command Points or wargear upgrades is good and promotes tactics on both sides.
Random 2D6" is less offensive with the first two points in consideration as they were the biggest reason people would have trouble making charges in the old edition. Increased basic durability with the most common ranged weapons not negating saves means shooting lost some tooth so that assault units have an increased chance of making it into combat with more numbers. And the tactical push of the consolidation move allowing you to pile into nearby units helps decrease some strategies (castle and gunline) which may find the best option is to spread their forces out instead of building walls of models to protect the squishier things.
Now without seeing ALL the rules I can't promise that everything is as good as it looks right now, but I do feel assault is looking to have some buffs (especially if rend values are centered around melee weapons instead of ranged weapons) and shooting got toned back appropiately. Army building looks like it'll need a mix of assault and shooting units to be successful and that makes my little black heart very warm indeed.
You forgot that you now get an extra 1" to every charge, making successful charges significantly more likely.
True, true. I wasn't thinking about it as much as the other mechanics, 8" is now the avg charge range which is good too.
On a different note about ICs: if they can't join units how do they hitch rides on transports? Will they get retinues back to allow them to build command units to compensate at least?
The pile in rules are all well and good for horde armies (and I certainly do not begrudge them that), but what about small, elite assault armies? They don't have the model count to pile in on multiple units at once, especially not after factoring in losses to overwatch.
That doesn't answer transport sharing between units and ICs though.
It does, actually; it just doesn't address the issue separately.
Vessel: An Arkanaut Frigate can carry 10 Skyfarer models, allowing them to move swiftly across the battlefield and in relative safety.
Skyfarer is a keyword, so any model with that keyword can be carried. It specifies models, not units. It has an additional rule that it can carry extra models at a penalty to movement, so if you want extra characters, you'll have to go slower.
Embark: If all models in a Skyfarer unit can move to within 3" of a friendly Arkanaut Frigate in the movement phase, they can embark within it.
If you have a unit of 5 and a character, and both can move to within 3", they both can embark.
Disembark: Any unit that begins its hero phase embarked within an Arkanaut Frigate can disembark during the hero phase. When a unit disembarks, set it up so that all its models are within 3" of the vessel and none are within 3" of any enemy models – any disembarking model that cannot be set up in this way is slain.
You can disembark both units, as long as all of them fit within 3".
Robin5t wrote: The pile in rules are all well and good for horde armies (and I certainly do not begrudge them that), but what about small, elite assault armies? They don't have the model count to pile in on multiple units at once, especially not after factoring in losses to overwatch.
Elite combat units just won't get to tie up multiple units that easily. Do you really expect 5 Vanguard Vets to operate exactly the same as 30 Hormagaunts? The former will have better weapons and will tear through tougher targets better, the latter will swarm multiple units and bog them down in bodies. They don't need to have the same strengths.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: ICs no longer joining units does put a dampener on the silly units where multiple ICs synergize out the wazoo I guess.
Do we have full confirmation that ICs can't join units?
You'll have to dig through Pete Foley's tweets but it was definitely there in one of his tweet responses early after the initial 8th Edition announcement. I remember seeing it myself as well as multiple screencaps.
Same with the statements on the Warhammer 40.000 facebook page, they are responses to comments made to posts about the individual rule previews, so you'll have to do some digging.
If they remove unit limits in transports and just make it a size limit instead I'll be over the moon. Multiple units in one transport should be possible.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.
A fair number of historicals games do it too. TooFat Lardies' Chain of Command (an excellent WW2 system) and Sharp Practice have diced movement, for example.
Like you said in the part I snipped out, randomized movement allows for some of the randomness and fog of war that get taken out of wargames because the tables have limited detail and the players have a top-down godlike view.
In real life, soldiers hesitate, they find unstable or difficult ground, etc.
But this doesn't address why, in 40K, none of this uncertainty applies to shooting.
Back in the day, we had the choosing the target rule, but these days a unit of Fire Warriors can calmly fire over the heads of a unit of Khorne Bezerkers mere feet away at a unit of Cultists at maximum range with totally undiminished efficacy. Even the cover save for an intervening unit can be bypassed by a markerlight judiciously applied.
One assumes that a major change to shooting such as not having free reign on your target choice would have been mentioned, so it's reasonable to assume it hasn't changed.
Once again, it isn't strictly an issue about random, so much as random being unevenly applied to the two halves of the game.
Pretty sure AoS doesn't have the text "closest enemy" which is why a long charge can be sent around behind the unit and why people use the pile in to drag other units into assault.
Except it does:
Age of Sigmar Core Rules wrote:Step 1: When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model. This will allow the models in the unit to get closer to the enemy in order to attack them.
Edit: Beaten by KiloFiX
In GW's official video about piling in they show you how you can move models around instead of straight lines towards the enemy.
It doesn't say "straight line," no, and that wasn't implied. But it does say "towards closest enemy model," which means when you're done with the Pile In move that model has to be closer than when it started. So, the videos don't contradict that, so, please, continue.
Valander wrote: It doesn't say "straight line," no, and that wasn't implied. But it does say "towards closest enemy model," which means when you're done with the Pile In move that model has to be closer than when it started. So, the videos don't contradict that, so, please, continue.
It all depends on how models can be moved in the initial charge. If they can fan out, it should be easy to pile-in to other units. If that have to more directly toward the target unit, it will take some creative conga-lining (like before) to make it happen.
Future War Cultist wrote: If they remove unit limits in transports and just make it a size limit instead I'll be over the moon. Multiple units in one transport should be possible.
In AoS it is possible and you can disembark one without the other.
Robin5t wrote: The pile in rules are all well and good for horde armies (and I certainly do not begrudge them that), but what about small, elite assault armies? They don't have the model count to pile in on multiple units at once, especially not after factoring in losses to overwatch.
Elite combat units just won't get to tie up multiple units that easily. Do you really expect 5 Vanguard Vets to operate exactly the same as 30 Hormagaunts? The former will have better weapons and will tear through tougher targets better, the latter will swarm multiple units and bog them down in bodies. They don't need to have the same strengths.
No, and I wouldn't expect them to operate the same way at all - but the point had to be made that for all people are saying this is a 'big buff to assault armies', it's only a buff to one particular type of assault army.
For some of us, however, we can't handily lock several enemy units up at once, so the one we're fighting can still simply disengage the next turn while their mates blow us away with impunity.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Don't think it has been discussed before... but if you now only need to get within 1" of an enemy unit to engage it in melee... it means the reach of the pile in move to tie in another unit is effectively not just 3", but actually 4".
3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.
GW have explicitly stated that "within x"" means base-to-base, so no.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:Make it 100%... models cannot advance and charge. unless they have some rule giving them an exception to that.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:There is a standard 1" range of weapons, but with the 3" pile in before you attack, just about every model should be able to fight.
Future War Cultist wrote: If they remove unit limits in transports and just make it a size limit instead I'll be over the moon. Multiple units in one transport should be possible.
It is in AOS - you can even overload the vehicle Tank riders anyone....
Valander wrote: It doesn't say "straight line," no, and that wasn't implied. But it does say "towards closest enemy model," which means when you're done with the Pile In move that model has to be closer than when it started. So, the videos don't contradict that, so, please, continue.
It all depends on how models can be moved in the initial charge. If they can fan out, it should be easy to pile-in to other units. If that have to more directly toward the target unit, it will take some creative conga-lining (like before) to make it happen.
if it's anything like in AoS (and I see no reason it won't be at this point, but of course we don't have final wording), yeah you can fan out. For a charge to be successful in AoS, the first model you move has to end within 1/2" of a model in the declared unit (looks like this will be 1" for 40k), and after that you can move models however you want so long as you maintain coherency (which is 1"), and nobody's within 3" of a unit other than the one that was charged.
It'll be curious to see how the "can't charge a unit you didn't declare on" and piling in works out; my guess is you'll resolve the declared charges first, even if that means doing a portion of a unit, then go through non-charged combats in the alternating sequence. Remains to be seen though.
Robin5t wrote: The pile in rules are all well and good for horde armies (and I certainly do not begrudge them that), but what about small, elite assault armies? They don't have the model count to pile in on multiple units at once, especially not after factoring in losses to overwatch.
Elite combat units just won't get to tie up multiple units that easily. Do you really expect 5 Vanguard Vets to operate exactly the same as 30 Hormagaunts? The former will have better weapons and will tear through tougher targets better, the latter will swarm multiple units and bog them down in bodies. They don't need to have the same strengths.
No, and I wouldn't expect them to operate the same way at all - but the point had to be made that for all people are saying this is a 'big buff to assault armies', it's only a buff to one particular type of assault army.
For some of us, however, we can't handily lock several enemy units up at once, so the one we're fighting can still simply disengage the next turn while their mates blow us away with impunity.
There are 2 huge differences for elite armies actually:
1) Transport got really hard to take down and you can assault from those.
2) 3+ armor can no longer be negated (maybe melta), and in cover you have a 2+ against light weapons.
And probably 3) You don't remove casualties from the front.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: ICs no longer joining units does put a dampener on the silly units where multiple ICs synergize out the wazoo I guess.
Do we have full confirmation that ICs can't join units?
You'll have to dig through Pete Foley's tweets but it was definitely there in one of his tweet responses early after the initial 8th Edition announcement. I remember seeing it myself as well as multiple screencaps.
Same with the statements on the Warhammer 40.000 facebook page, they are responses to comments made to posts about the individual rule previews, so you'll have to do some digging.
I follow Pete on Twitter. No such thing was ever said.
Robin5t wrote: The pile in rules are all well and good for horde armies (and I certainly do not begrudge them that), but what about small, elite assault armies? They don't have the model count to pile in on multiple units at once, especially not after factoring in losses to overwatch.
Elite combat units just won't get to tie up multiple units that easily. Do you really expect 5 Vanguard Vets to operate exactly the same as 30 Hormagaunts? The former will have better weapons and will tear through tougher targets better, the latter will swarm multiple units and bog them down in bodies. They don't need to have the same strengths.
No, and I wouldn't expect them to operate the same way at all - but the point had to be made that for all people are saying this is a 'big buff to assault armies', it's only a buff to one particular type of assault army.
For some of us, however, we can't handily lock several enemy units up at once, so the one we're fighting can still simply disengage the next turn while their mates blow us away with impunity.
If you charged something that can step back and allow your enemy to shoot you, then you charged something that if you wiped out in one turn will again allow the enemy to shoot you, which means you should not have charged that thing in the first place. You aren't playing with one unit against your opponent's two units no matter how many times this argument comes up. You are playing your army against their army.
If you charged something and they are able to step back and let another shooty unit unload on you, you either knew ahead of time this would be the outcome and prepared for it, or you got outplayed.
Valander wrote: It doesn't say "straight line," no, and that wasn't implied. But it does say "towards closest enemy model," which means when you're done with the Pile In move that model has to be closer than when it started. So, the videos don't contradict that, so, please, continue.
It all depends on how models can be moved in the initial charge. If they can fan out, it should be easy to pile-in to other units. If that have to more directly toward the target unit, it will take some creative conga-lining (like before) to make it happen.
if it's anything like in AoS (and I see no reason it won't be at this point, but of course we don't have final wording), yeah you can fan out. For a charge to be successful in AoS, the first model you move has to end within 1/2" of a model in the declared unit (looks like this will be 1" for 40k), and after that you can move models however you want so long as you maintain coherency (which is 1"), and nobody's within 3" of a unit other than the one that was charged.
It'll be curious to see how the "can't charge a unit you didn't declare on" and piling in works out; my guess is you'll resolve the declared charges first, even if that means doing a portion of a unit, then go through non-charged combats in the alternating sequence. Remains to be seen though.
Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.
There is some randomness throughout the game - just because there is a little bit in this particular case doesn't suddenly make the entire game snakes and ladders.
A single 2d6 roll to see if an entire unit of up to 50 models does nothing during an entire phase under ideal circumstances on their own turn with no cause from the opposing player is the exact opposite of "a little bit" of randomness... especially if that phase is its supposed specialty.
Of course you realize there is no such thing as ideal circumstance in a battlefield...
And fixed charge ranges with premeasuring would actually HELP shooty army. Yes that's right. Flat 6" charge range like in 5th ed would be huge DEBUFF to the assault armies. Do you really hate assault armies so much you need to kick them in the teeth?
Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.
Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!
Future War Cultist wrote: If they remove unit limits in transports and just make it a size limit instead I'll be over the moon. Multiple units in one transport should be possible.
In AoS it is possible and you can disembark one without the other.
Yeah it's great isn't it?
Being able to share transports will cut down on the cost.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
Does knowing whether unit even moves count? I know non-GW games where you aren't even quaranteed you move when you want. Funny that. Soldiers not following orders due to confusion, fear etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vorian wrote: Is it stupid that a tank can miss a shot? Uhh, I rolled one dice and this unit did nothing, what a bad mechanic!
As I said, you're free to not like it, just don't pretend it's for some universal truth that people who do like it are violating. That's nonsensical
I have lost games due to tank missing with it's gun.
(Even better. I have lost game because own tank blew out my own super heavy! Pretty impressive to accidentally hit super heavy tank out of all things )
I think we should attach this sentence to the end of every post. A lot of the concerns we've seen so far could easily be mitigated or outright eliminated with unit rules.
Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.
Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!
I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.
Maybe Fleet does what it was always meant to do now (again?)
That will be interesting!
Now who gets New Fleet?
Given recent information suggesting there's still some old GW lurking inside new GW, Imma going to say Assault Centurions will have it, but feth you Bezerkers!
I think we should attach this sentence to the end of every post. A lot of the concerns we've seen so far could easily be mitigated or outright eliminated with unit rules.
Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.
Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!
I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.
Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.
Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!
I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.
I thought so, too, but Spoletta's comment made me doubt, since GW apparently gave an example that shows otherwise. However, I see this in the core rules, which makes me doubt my doubt:
A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a single group of models, with all models within 1" of at least one other model from their unit.
I'd assume a Pile In Move is, well, "any sort of move".
Case of GW not knowing their own rules in videos or something? (I'm sure that's never happened. )
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:Make it 100%... models cannot advance and charge. unless they have some rule giving them an exception to that.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:There is a standard 1" range of weapons, but with the 3" pile in before you attack, just about every model should be able to fight.
Is 8th edition 'advance' the same as running in previous editions?
EDIT: read further in the thread and it answers my questions... don't mind me.
I think we should attach this sentence to the end of every post. A lot of the concerns we've seen so far could easily be mitigated or outright eliminated with unit rules.
Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.
Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!
I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.
You do have you end a charge in coherency. You can't break coherency on purpose.
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a single group of models, with all models within 1” of at least one other model from their unit"
There is nothing in the charge rules that makes charges exempt from the general rule.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.
A fair number of historicals games do it too. TooFat Lardies' Chain of Command (an excellent WW2 system) and Sharp Practice have diced movement, for example.
Like you said in the part I snipped out, randomized movement allows for some of the randomness and fog of war that get taken out of wargames because the tables have limited detail and the players have a top-down godlike view.
In real life, soldiers hesitate, they find unstable or difficult ground, etc.
But this doesn't address why, in 40K, none of this uncertainty applies to shooting.
Shooting is already unbelievably gimped in wargames as it is. At 24 inches, it reduces the effective range of 28mm models to roughly 50 meters to scale, and means the average individual with a rifle can take 3-4 shots at a target moving at a normal speed, 2-3 for units running at them. There was no true overwatch mechanic after 2nd Edition, meaning shooting units couldn't place themselves for effective defensive fire. There is definitely no merit to the idea that close combat is being disproportionately disadvantaged by this edition. Close combat has been disproportionately powerful for the last 18 years, lol. Warhammer 40K has gone to great lengths to ensure shooting sucked enough for troops to have a chance to hit people with their energized sticks.
And part of this is the fault of 3rd Edition (whose basic mechanics polluted the game through 7th Edition) which introduced the concept of Close Combat Armies (as opposed to 2nd Edition where pretty much everybody could shoot. Orks with BS3! Termagants with useful weapons!).
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
Does knowing whether unit even moves count? I know non-GW games where you aren't even quaranteed you move when you want. Funny that. Soldiers not following orders due to confusion, fear etc.
Do those same soldiers who don't follow orders due to fear and confusion suddenly become emotionless machines, performing flawlessly, if instructed to do something else?
I think we should attach this sentence to the end of every post. A lot of the concerns we've seen so far could easily be mitigated or outright eliminated with unit rules.
Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.
Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!
I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.
You've misunderstood the article. A Dragon Noble is a character, those two Dragon Nobles sandwiching an enemy unit are two separate units, not one unit splitting up. You can't charge without maintaining coherency.
Ah, Spoletta, that article. That actually isn't written by GW originally, but is a fan-made site that got "invited" in. Also, looking at that, I'm not sure where you get that unit cohesion isn't still required from that article. (The Dragon Nobles are individual models, not a single unit of 2 models.)
rollawaythestone wrote: You forgot that you now get an extra 1" to every charge, making successful charges significantly more likely.
IF you refer to the within 1" rather than b2b you realize that shooty army will simply be 1" further behind so where before it was 7" to b2b now it's 8" to b2b so you still need 7" to get in...
That is less of a buff in actual charge distance you need to roll and more of help for board control as you force enemy to keep further away.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.
A fair number of historicals games do it too. TooFat Lardies' Chain of Command (an excellent WW2 system) and Sharp Practice have diced movement, for example.
Like you said in the part I snipped out, randomized movement allows for some of the randomness and fog of war that get taken out of wargames because the tables have limited detail and the players have a top-down godlike view.
In real life, soldiers hesitate, they find unstable or difficult ground, etc.
But this doesn't address why, in 40K, none of this uncertainty applies to shooting.
Shooting is already unbelievably gimped in wargames as it is. At 24 inches, it reduces the effective range of 28mm models to roughly 50 meters to scale, and means the average individual with a rifle can take 3-4 shots at a target moving at a normal speed, 2-3 for units running at them. There was no true overwatch mechanic after 2nd Edition, meaning shooting units couldn't place themselves for effective defensive fire.
Lets not try and being realism into the debate, irrespective of scale, a unit with 6" move and 24" range can threaten a 60" bubble on a 72"x48" table. The same unit with melee weapons can threaten a 36" bubble 1/36 turns.
There is definitely no merit to the idea that close combat is being disproportionately disadvantaged by this edition. Close combat has been disproportionately powerful for the last 18 years, lol. Warhammer 40K has gone to great lengths to ensure shooting sucked enough for troops to have a chance to hit people with their energized sticks.
This has not been my experience.
And part of this is the fault of 3rd Edition (whose basic mechanics polluted the game through 7th Edition) which introduced the concept of Close Combat Armies (as opposed to 2nd Edition where pretty much everybody could shoot. Orks with BS3! Termagants with useful weapons!).
Don't care. If you're going to develop a concept in a game, there's a responsibility on the developer to implement it in a manner that allows fair use of that concept. It can't be a trap, especially when that trap can cause a customer to invest hundreds of pounds and hours into the product.
Striking in your opponents turn will no longer be guaranteed. It will be your opponents choice whether they allow you to strike in their turn, or whether they leave combat in their movement phase.
That's not how AoS works. Every unit in combat will strike. It's the controlling player who picks a unit first.
Only if you cherry pick the units, the range, and completely ignore the fact that assault units must skip at a minimum one turn usually two to get to that first charge while simultaneously sustaining casualties themselves in the meantime.
No cover?
No transports?
No infiltrate?
No drop pods?
No bikes or jetpacks?
No shooting back?
Is it increased? Sure...but that is to make up for the other things that been constant since 3rd... prior to the intro of completely random charges and overwatch.
We are in agreement then! Shooting and CC are now equal!
Striking in your opponents turn will no longer be guaranteed. It will be your opponents choice whether they allow you to strike in their turn, or whether they leave combat in their movement phase.
That's not how AoS works. Every unit in combat will strike. It's the controlling player who picks a unit first.
He's referring to opponent being able to decide if you can strike in his turn by whether _he simply steps out of combat_.
You can't strike enemy at his turn if enemy simply decides to leave and let you be shot by his friends now can you?
Youn wrote: Some randomness to charges has to be in the game. I wish they would have gone with M+1d6 but they didn't.
If you always make it M*2 or M and you have pre-measurement in the game. You will have a recipe for making shooting armies way to powerful. Image Tau with a line of firewarriors in front of a pile of Riptides behind them. They can let you get close, pre-measure the distance to a charge. Back up to 1.5" further then you can charge. Shoot you, let you move and back up again, rinse and repeat for a game.
That works for me. It would mean that simply charging straight across the board becomes the poor strategy that it always should have been... Assault armies would need to outflank, or use faster units to tie up enemy units while the slower units get into range.
And, of course, there's only so far that a unit can keep backing up before they run out of board.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: ICs no longer joining units does put a dampener on the silly units where multiple ICs synergize out the wazoo I guess.
Would that it were so. I'm sure they all have "Units within X gain Y" powers. Hopefully they will be well thought out and clearly written. I also hope most of their powers are "MODEL" and not "Unit" based, or say "Units with at least half their models within 6" or the like. I aways hate the bizarre conga line to get one model within range of the buff effect.
Personally I'm fine with both random charge distances AND exploding vehicles. It seems a bit odd to love one but not the other. I was decent player back in the day, but never so intense that it annoyed me that the game could turn on a few critical die rolls. You played the odds as best you could - that was part of feeling like a general and the drama of the combat. It made games more exciting. Now the plucky meltagunner will won't stop the landraider unless it was already almost dead. Ok it makes the game more like chess, but no game will ever be as good at being chess as chess is.
Azreal13 wrote: But this doesn't address why, in 40K, none of this uncertainty applies to shooting.
See my post for a possible reason why charging would be randomized but shooting not.
But beyond that, this is a goalpost shift. You simply asked if any other systems did this. They do. Several also have a CnC system where even passing an order to a unit may not occur. Mechanics to represent your troops not being completely reliable are rife throughout the industry and where and when that occurs is up tot he designer. Though with all that said, few games try for random weapon ranges, but random movement is definitely a thing. This isn't GW doing something unique and (if you want to read the rest of my post) it has its merits in representing the fog of war where pure use of static values does not.
Once again, it isn't strictly an issue about random, so much as random being unevenly applied to the two halves of the game.
Why is it important for it to be evenly applied? If you want your mechanics to evoke a certain feel then slight differences in how things are resolved allows you to do that. But I've already gone over why a purely static movement can lead to issues in a game where you can have wildly different movement values between profiles. Either way, I've said my piece and it would probably be best if a separate thread got opened up for the charge distance debate. Wouldn't want another thread to get closed because it simply devolved in to a single-issue debate with no end and the two sides going round-and-round. Ideally the signal-to-noise ratio in the news thread stays more toward the signal end.
So I apologize for being part of the derailing posse. This thread's hard enough to keep abreast of without a bunch of grogs arguing about mechanics and how they should/shouldn't be done.
Valander wrote: Ah, Spoletta, that article. That actually isn't written by GW originally, but is a fan-made site that got "invited" in. Also, looking at that, I'm not sure where you get that unit cohesion isn't still required from that article. (The Dragon Nobles are individual models, not a single unit of 2 models.)
My bad, for some reason i read dragon blades instead of dragon nobles.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Shooting is already unbelievably gimped in wargames as it is. At 24 inches, it reduces the effective range of 28mm models to roughly 50 meters to scale, and means the average individual with a rifle can take 3-4 shots at a target moving at a normal speed, 2-3 for units running at them. There was no true overwatch mechanic after 2nd Edition, meaning shooting units couldn't place themselves for effective defensive fire. There is definitely no merit to the idea that close combat is being disproportionately disadvantaged by this edition. Close combat has been disproportionately powerful for the last 18 years, lol. Warhammer 40K has gone to great lengths to ensure shooting sucked enough for troops to have a chance to hit people with their energized sticks.
And part of this is the fault of 3rd Edition (whose basic mechanics polluted the game through 7th Edition) which introduced the concept of Close Combat Armies (as opposed to 2nd Edition where pretty much everybody could shoot. Orks with BS3! Termagants with useful weapons!).
Best joke post I've ever read. I mean, I'm assuming it's a joke, on the grounds that 40k might as well not have an assault phase in half the games I've ever played. I've certainly never heard anyone call it "disproportionately powerful" without using near-lethal levels of sarcasm.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Shooting is already unbelievably gimped in wargames as it is. At 24 inches, it reduces the effective range of 28mm models to roughly 50 meters to scale, and means the average individual with a rifle can take 3-4 shots at a target moving at a normal speed, 2-3 for units running at them. There was no true overwatch mechanic after 2nd Edition, meaning shooting units couldn't place themselves for effective defensive fire. There is definitely no merit to the idea that close combat is being disproportionately disadvantaged by this edition. Close combat has been disproportionately powerful for the last 18 years, lol. Warhammer 40K has gone to great lengths to ensure shooting sucked enough for troops to have a chance to hit people with their energized sticks.
And part of this is the fault of 3rd Edition (whose basic mechanics polluted the game through 7th Edition) which introduced the concept of Close Combat Armies (as opposed to 2nd Edition where pretty much everybody could shoot. Orks with BS3! Termagants with useful weapons!).
Best joke post I've ever read. I mean, I'm assuming it's a joke, on the grounds that 40k might as well not have an assault phase in half the games I've ever played. I've certainly never heard anyone call it "disproportionately powerful" without using near-lethal levels of sarcasm.
He is speaking in terms of realism i suppose.
When you have cannons that make mountains crumble, close combat does indeed look out of place.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Some FB comments already asked if P. Fists and T. hammers are unwieldy, and GW says they will reveal soon for using such "cumbersome heavy" weapons. So there must still be some sort of penalty.
Perhaps just a blanket rule like, enemy models in b2b always attack first unless wielding the same (unwieldy) type, then hits are simultaneous.
Azreal13 wrote: Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?
I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.
Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.
A fair number of historicals games do it too. TooFat Lardies' Chain of Command (an excellent WW2 system) and Sharp Practice have diced movement, for example.
Like you said in the part I snipped out, randomized movement allows for some of the randomness and fog of war that get taken out of wargames because the tables have limited detail and the players have a top-down godlike view.
In real life, soldiers hesitate, they find unstable or difficult ground, etc.
But this doesn't address why, in 40K, none of this uncertainty applies to shooting.
Shooting is already unbelievably gimped in wargames as it is. At 24 inches, it reduces the effective range of 28mm models to roughly 50 meters to scale, and means the average individual with a rifle can take 3-4 shots at a target moving at a normal speed, 2-3 for units running at them. There was no true overwatch mechanic after 2nd Edition, meaning shooting units couldn't place themselves for effective defensive fire. There is definitely no merit to the idea that close combat is being disproportionately disadvantaged by this edition. Close combat has been disproportionately powerful for the last 18 years, lol. Warhammer 40K has gone to great lengths to ensure shooting sucked enough for troops to have a chance to hit people with their energized sticks.
And part of this is the fault of 3rd Edition (whose basic mechanics polluted the game through 7th Edition) which introduced the concept of Close Combat Armies (as opposed to 2nd Edition where pretty much everybody could shoot. Orks with BS3! Termagants with useful weapons!).
I'm not sure what edition you've been playing but it has been documented and commented on quite extensively how close combat was crippled in 6th and 7th edition. The only units worth anything have re-rerollable invulnerable saves, multiple wounds and ignore cover when moving with everything else being trash.
Q: seems to be implied you can put multiple units in a single transport finally.. Is there any sign of being able to put a unit in multiple transports (which presumably then have to stay pretty close)?
leopard wrote: Q: seems to be implied you can put multiple units in a single transport finally.. Is there any sign of being able to put a unit in multiple transports (which presumably then have to stay pretty close)?
e.g. unit of 20 marines split between two Rhinos?
This is something I hoped would be possible. Imagine taking a big IG infantry mob and putting into multiple chimeras. You get the best of both worlds (mech and gunline) and it would be fluffy as hell.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:Make it 100%... models cannot advance and charge. unless they have some rule giving them an exception to that.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:There is a standard 1" range of weapons, but with the 3" pile in before you attack, just about every model should be able to fight.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Shooting is already unbelievably gimped in wargames as it is. At 24 inches, it reduces the effective range of 28mm models to roughly 50 meters to scale, and means the average individual with a rifle can take 3-4 shots at a target moving at a normal speed, 2-3 for units running at them. There was no true overwatch mechanic after 2nd Edition, meaning shooting units couldn't place themselves for effective defensive fire. There is definitely no merit to the idea that close combat is being disproportionately disadvantaged by this edition. Close combat has been disproportionately powerful for the last 18 years, lol. Warhammer 40K has gone to great lengths to ensure shooting sucked enough for troops to have a chance to hit people with their energized sticks.
And part of this is the fault of 3rd Edition (whose basic mechanics polluted the game through 7th Edition) which introduced the concept of Close Combat Armies (as opposed to 2nd Edition where pretty much everybody could shoot. Orks with BS3! Termagants with useful weapons!).
Best joke post I've ever read. I mean, I'm assuming it's a joke, on the grounds that 40k might as well not have an assault phase in half the games I've ever played. I've certainly never heard anyone call it "disproportionately powerful" without using near-lethal levels of sarcasm.
I'm guessing you're a younger player.
Shooting was so worthless in 3rd Edition, for example, that it created entirely new styles of play (none of which were much fun).
Besides, all I said was that it was disproportionately powerful, not overpowered. As in close combat has always been way more effective than it should be, while shooting has always been way less powerful than it should be. If there were times when close combat was "disadvantaged" that only means that close combat was less disproportionately powerful than in other editions.
40K's biggest stumbling point across the 3+ Editions has been trying to balance close combat armies against shooting armies. And that's like trying to balance 15th century French knights against the WW2 Wermacht, lol. Close combat should have always been the domain of specialist troops and options of last resort. Creating a game that incentivized people to bring entire armies of close combat troops was destined to create a flip-flopping balance of power because you're basically trying to create a functional ruleset for radically different styles of play.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: As in close combat has always been way more effective than it should be, while shooting has always been way less powerful than it should be.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Personally I'd prefer shooting and melee to be roughly equally effective approaches, and by reading these forums I can conclude that I'm not alone with this view. It doesn't matter that it is not 'realistic', 40K is space fantasy, not hard scifi. Chainswords are cool.
Shooting was so worthless in 3rd Edition, for example, that it created entirely new styles of play (none of which were much fun).
Besides, all I said was that it was disproportionately powerful, not overpowered. As in close combat has always been way more effective than it should be, while shooting has always been way less powerful than it should be. If there were times when close combat was "disadvantaged" that only means that close combat was less disproportionately powerful than in other editions.
40K's biggest stumbling point across the 3+ Editions has been trying to balance close combat armies against shooting armies. And that's like trying to balance 15th century French knights against the WW2 Wermacht, lol. Close combat should have always been the domain of specialist troops and options of last resort. Creating a game that incentivized people to bring entire armies of close combat troops was destined to create a flip-flopping balance of power because you're basically trying to create a functional ruleset for radically different styles of play.
This is not true at all, close combat was decent in previous editions, and even tipped the scales at some points, but never have we been where we are now but with the sides switched. It was NEVER at a point where it was impossible to make a pure shooting army that could have a reasonable chance at winning games.
I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.
ERJAK wrote: I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.
the same can be said about every phase except movement and deployment; but we didn't sit down to play chess, we wanted a wargame; and we chose the one that has deptictions of super human demigods strangling dragons with their bare hands....
ERJAK wrote: I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.
You mean it was dull (it wasn't) . This is the new activation method... I'm looking forward to it quite a bit... maybe reading news before talking about it would be a better idea
AlmightyWalrus wrote: ICs no longer joining units does put a dampener on the silly units where multiple ICs synergize out the wazoo I guess.
If they're going the AoS character route though they'll have an aura that they can give out to units in a certain distance, can be anything from +1 save to extra attacks, rend or re-rolls.
Azreal13 wrote: But this doesn't address why, in 40K, none of this uncertainty applies to shooting.
See my post for a possible reason why charging would be randomized but shooting not.
But beyond that, this is a goalpost shift.
Not in the least, I asked a question, received an answer, followed up on the information provided. That's kinda how discussions work when one party is asking for information.
Once again, it isn't strictly an issue about random, so much as random being unevenly applied to the two halves of the game.
Why is it important for it to be evenly applied?
Because if two methods of casualty removal are presented to a new player, which is a key element to winning a game, and they choose to collect an army that specializes in the method which is, to all intents and purposes, a trap, if it's ineherently notably less efficient, then that's no good for retaining new players.
If one method is inherently notably less efficient than the other, then that also reduces diversity at the competitive end, which could be reasonably termed the opposite end of the spectrum, and less variety makes for a stale play environment, and that makes for bored players, and bored players go looking for more interesting games.
Then you have the guys who aren't new, but aren't bothered enough to rebuy new armies to stay at the top end of the curve either. They'll just be further disillusioned that they've got another update that's done nothing to redress the issues that have plagued their army (which they probably have great affection for and loyalty towards) since time immemorial. Ultimately these players will come to a point where they either shelve their army and stop playing, or move on to other games.
All in all, if there's two chief ways of causing casualties in the game, it's important for a healthy game to have them both equally strong.
I'm not condemning the rules yet, to lose one's gak based on half a picture (if that) would be stupid, but I have long advocated for more agency and less random in the game, and totally random charges is a disappointment.
Shooting was so worthless in 3rd Edition, for example, that it created entirely new styles of play (none of which were much fun).
Besides, all I said was that it was disproportionately powerful, not overpowered. As in close combat has always been way more effective than it should be, while shooting has always been way less powerful than it should be. If there were times when close combat was "disadvantaged" that only means that close combat was less disproportionately powerful than in other editions.
40K's biggest stumbling point across the 3+ Editions has been trying to balance close combat armies against shooting armies. And that's like trying to balance 15th century French knights against the WW2 Wermacht, lol. Close combat should have always been the domain of specialist troops and options of last resort. Creating a game that incentivized people to bring entire armies of close combat troops was destined to create a flip-flopping balance of power because you're basically trying to create a functional ruleset for radically different styles of play.
This is not true at all, close combat was decent in previous editions, and even tipped the scales at some points, but never have we been where we are now but with the sides switched. It was NEVER at a point where it was impossible to make a pure shooting army that could have a reasonable chance at winning games.
I clearly said this kind of ruleset was "destined to create a flip-flopping balance of power"
And you replied :
"This is not true at all, close combat was decent in previous editions, and even tipped the scales at some points"
<taps microphone> Is this thing on?
It was NEVER at a point where it was impossible to make a pure shooting army that could have a reasonable chance at winning games.
Well, I mean, first, I didn't say that and I'm really curious as to how you thought it was implied, lol.
ERJAK wrote: I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.
But that's like, your opinion, man
I love getting in to close combat, and cutting swathes through the enemy. I can't help what I enjoy
ERJAK wrote: I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.
But that's like, your opinion, man
This close combat news is well received! So far every new item, I have liked. How many of these GW reveals before the actual release?
I agree that meele combat is the less interactive aspect of all of the Warhammer interations, because no player did anything after the charges.
But I'll be lying if is not where all the epic histories about my games have happened, and the part that I most enjoy. The tension! The drama! The Chaos Lord being slain by a Goblin!
I'd expect they are running out of topics to make articles about and they said they would post an article a day up to release. Hopefully this means either this weekend or next weekend we get pre-orders or just a flat out release of everything online.
"Here's all the rules and codexs, run and be free my bloodthirsty children." ~GW
CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
I'm ok with these changes to charging and Fighting as long as it's with the context I no longer have to take models off the front of a unit. In AoS the owner of the unit gets to choose what models come off, and how this is what they do for 8th ed 40k. To me that would sound about right.
If they kept casualties off the front of units, then assault is dead in the water.
Plumbumbarum wrote: CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.
But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.
Lockark wrote: I'm ok with these changes to charging and Fighting as long as it's with the context I no longer have to take models off the front of a unit. In AoS the owner of the unit gets to choose what models come off, and how this is what they do for 8th ed 40k.
I'm okay with that as long as you are first required to apply any subsequent wounds to a wounded multi-wound-model first. We don't want to revive the wound shenanigans of 5th edition (ie, nob bikers).
Lockark wrote: I'm ok with these changes to charging and Fighting as long as it's with the context I no longer have to take models off the front of a unit. In AoS the owner of the unit gets to choose what models come off, and how this is what they do for 8th ed 40k. To me that would sound about right.
If they kept casualties off the front of units, then assault is dead in the water.
There is also a factor of people's skill level , if your a really good player you could play a less effective army and still win , if your always winning and your playing equal armies then you need to hamper your army or you will be that guy ,which is made so much worse if your a good player and a good army < this is the really problem with balance . I'm really glad they have kept in more randomness as it creates those moments that everybody cares about . In my experience when fighting close combat armies it's been a race against time to see if I could kill them before they got to me which has been a lot of fun ,if the new rules can make this feel like a close run thing I will be happy
Plumbumbarum wrote: CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.
But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.
They said vehicles will have statlines like troops. So it's gonna be fixed.
If it doesn't wield a chainsword, it doesn't belong in 40K. Shooting should come second to assault always.
On a more serious note, it should actually be 50/50 mix of shooting and assault. Not because I actually believe that, but some people buy shooty armies I guess, so they need some love too.
Does anyone have any confirmation about character not being able to join units? This is a real deal breaker for me. How the hell are characters supposed to get around the battlefield by themselves? Why would they not be able to join units?
I really think shooting-focused armies are going to be fine. Tau will probably keep Coordinated Firepower, meaning any unit charging them is probably going to be wiped out by Overwatch. Their monsters are probably going to resilient as hell.
Necrons are just going to refuse to die like usual (and their CC units might actually see use). Wraiths are probably still going to be insane.
Guard might actually have to employ a different tactic than "We have reserves" (hopefully their tanks will be quite good).
My Crimson Fists (that rarely, if ever, attempted to get in combat) will be getting some units like Tactical Terminators dusted off. I might even make an Assault Squad for them (with a Power Fist on the Sergeant no less!). I might actually take a second look at Assault Centurions as well. I have a Dreadnought(basically was an afterthought from wanting the Terminator Captain in the Start Collecting box and another Tactical Squad) that I'm itching to start building now so he can see play. I haven't used a SM Dreadnought EVER since they sucked so bad. And that always made me sad since I have always loved the Angry Washing Machine. I really hope ramming is an actual attack that can be done against Troops. I can't wait to slam a Rhino into a blob of Orks.
In short, if you wanted to play your army exactly how you did in 7e without modification, you are probably going to be disappointed. But there are a lot of people whose armies just became viable for the first time in two editions. Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.
And let's not forget, if the game really ends up broken in favor of Assault (Spoiler: it won't), they can always change some of the rules based on feedback.
Plumbumbarum wrote: A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
If that's still a rule, it's likely specific to certain vehicles.
A 10/10/10 vehicle can be simplified to a single T/SV value, while a 12/10/10 may gain a special rule that improves their front save. That way differential vehicle armor doesn't need to be part of the core rules.
Plumbumbarum wrote: CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.
But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.
They said vehicles will have statlines like troops. So it's gonna be fixed.
A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.
andysonic1 wrote: I'd expect they are running out of topics to make articles about and they said they would post an article a day up to release. Hopefully this means either this weekend or next weekend we get pre-orders or just a flat out release of everything online.
"Here's all the rules and codexs, run and be free my bloodthirsty children." ~GW
In a game with nearly thirty existing factions I don't think there short of stuff to write about
casvalremdeikun wrote: I really think shooting-focused armies are going to be fine. Tau will probably keep Coordinated Firepower, meaning any unit charging them is probably going to be wiped out by Overwatch. Their monsters are probably going to resilient as hell.
Necrons are just going to refuse to die like usual (and their CC units might actually see use). Wraiths are probably still going to be insane.
Guard might actually have to employ a different tactic than "We have reserves" (hopefully their tanks will be quite good).
My Crimson Fists (that rarely, if ever, attempted to get in combat) will be getting some units like Tactical Terminators dusted off. I might even make an Assault Squad for them (with a Power Fist on the Sergeant no less!). I might actually take a second look at Assault Centurions as well. I have a Dreadnought(basically was an afterthought from wanting the Terminator Captain in the Start Collecting box and another Tactical Squad) that I'm itching to start building now so he can see play. I haven't used a SM Dreadnought EVER since they sucked so bad. And that always made me sad since I have always loved the Angry Washing Machine. I really hope ramming is an actual attack that can be done against Troops. I can't wait to slam a Rhino into a blob of Orks.
In short, if you wanted to play your army exactly how you did in 7e without modification, you are probably going to be disappointed. But there are a lot of people whose armies just became viable for the first time in two editions. Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.
And let's not forget, if the game really ends up broken in favor of Assault (Spoiler: it won't), they can always change some of the rules based on feedback.
This. Many people have forgotten, or just weren't around for previous times it happened, edition changes almost always necessitated a shake-up in tactics for most armies. So, it sounds like certain armies wont be able to sit on their laurels in the deployment zone and blast armies apart across the table. As a player of one of those armies, that -doesn't- use that tactic, this is a good thing. Change can be good. Variety can be good. It may take a game or two, or several before we find what what works for our armies, playstyles and preferred tactics, but on the whole, the rules as we currently know them look very promising. And if the ones the AoS players say are current in AoS, port over to 40k - assault from transports, assault from reserve/deep strike, and others, then this is shaping up to be an exciting shift in the game.
Random charge distance can still go die in a fire, though.
A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.
...but would invalidate the simplification with a pile of exceptions (it's a 12-page ruleset remember!). Banking on one statline, apart from special vehicles (perhaps Russ has front bonus), but most being fixed.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I really think shooting-focused armies are going to be fine. Tau will probably keep Coordinated Firepower, meaning any unit charging them is probably going to be wiped out by Overwatch. Their monsters are probably going to resilient as hell.
Necrons are just going to refuse to die like usual (and their CC units might actually see use). Wraiths are probably still going to be insane.
Guard might actually have to employ a different tactic than "We have reserves" (hopefully their tanks will be quite good).
My Crimson Fists (that rarely, if ever, attempted to get in combat) will be getting some units like Tactical Terminators dusted off. I might even make an Assault Squad for them (with a Power Fist on the Sergeant no less!). I might actually take a second look at Assault Centurions as well. I have a Dreadnought(basically was an afterthought from wanting the Terminator Captain in the Start Collecting box and another Tactical Squad) that I'm itching to start building now so he can see play. I haven't used a SM Dreadnought EVER since they sucked so bad. And that always made me sad since I have always loved the Angry Washing Machine. I really hope ramming is an actual attack that can be done against Troops. I can't wait to slam a Rhino into a blob of Orks.
In short, if you wanted to play your army exactly how you did in 7e without modification, you are probably going to be disappointed. But there are a lot of people whose armies just became viable for the first time in two editions. Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.
And let's not forget, if the game really ends up broken in favor of Assault (Spoiler: it won't), they can always change some of the rules based on feedback.
I'm expecting Necrons to get resurrection rules in the Command phase (or whatever the Hero Phase equivalent will be called) similar to Deathrattle in AoS. Maybe Warriors return d6 models, Immortals d3, and Lychguard/Praetorians 1 model per turn.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.
As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.
As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.
I think the ability to bounce into more assaults and Initiative being gone will help Orks out quite a bit. I am skeptical, but I would love to see them be decent.
A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.
...but would invalidate the simplification with a pile of exceptions (it's a 12-page ruleset remember!). Banking on one statline, apart from special vehicles (perhaps Russ has front bonus), but most being fixed.
Either way, there's no evidence to suggest that there isn't some mechanism, and vehicles sharing a statline isn't enough info to make the leap.
A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.
...but would invalidate the simplification with a pile of exceptions (it's a 12-page ruleset remember!). Banking on one statline, apart from special vehicles (perhaps Russ has front bonus), but most being fixed.
Such thing could be easily represented on unit cards - simple diagram showing vehicle's facings and then telling how much Tougness/Save is worse from which angle. That would hardly make the game unplayably complex, although it does kinda make giving up AV system pointless.
Any way, if Vehicle facings are not simulated by any means, it is going to lead much visual silliness - smart thing to do would be always to turn the tank sideways to the enemy to maximize his shooting/charge distance.
JohnnyHell wrote: I'm not going to argue about 'evidence' when there is none and we've but seen snippets of the whole. We'll know in a few weeks.
So basically, me saying
But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.
Was the correct answer and all the back and forth about how it's going to be fixed and compound rules for vehicle keywords being contrary to the 12 page simplification was a waste of time then? FFS.
Such thing could be easily represented on unit cards - simple diagram showing vehicle's facings and then telling how much Tougness/Save is worse from which angle. That would hardly make the game unplayably complex, although it does kinda make giving up AV system pointless.
Any way, if Vehicle facings are not simulated by any means, it is going to lead much visual silliness - smart thing to do would be always to turn the tank sideways to the enemy to maximize his shooting/charge distance.
They had something similar in 2nd edition and it was a bit clumsy. Id be fine with flat directional modifier ONLY if they applied to everything of a certain base sIze or more and not just vehicles otherwise we're back to screwing over vehicles compared with them.
Plumbumbarum wrote: CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.
Removing one of the last sources of gameplay depth in the movement phase would mean it's rubbish, yes. You should add actual depth, not remove the last tiny bits of it. The gameplay was already point and click simplistic but at least there were reasons for flanking manouvers - now it will only take simplifying the cover rules and you might just as well make it a card game.
Plumbumbarum wrote: CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.
Removing one of the last sources of gameplay depth in the movement phase would mean it's rubbish, yes. You should add actual depth, not remove the last tiny bits of it. The gameplay was already point and click simplistic but at least there were reasons for flanking manouvers - now it will only take simplifying the cover rules and you might just as well make it a card game.
I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.
As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.
I think the ability to bounce into more assaults and Initiative being gone will help Orks out quite a bit. I am skeptical, but I would love to see them be decent.
Adding the durability of Trukks to my list of improvements. It will take a bit of sustained firepower to pop a truck on turn 1, and then the unit inside of it. Going 2nd won't be the death knell it used to be.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.
As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.
I think the ability to bounce into more assaults and Initiative being gone will help Orks out quite a bit. I am skeptical, but I would love to see them be decent.
Adding the durability of Trukks to my list of improvements. It will take a bit of sustained firepower to pop a truck on turn 1, and then the unit inside of it. Going 2nd won't be the death knell it used to be.
If they can get across the board at least semi-reliably, a good sized unit of Boyz with a FC analogue, maybe some option to gain a rend CCW and striking first are going to be quite the handful.
Azreal13 wrote: Hater gonna hate, man. I'd just quit trying.
Internet tone. I have to remember. Shoulda dropped a /s to the end of that. Sorry. Yes, I was attempting to be ironic.
I feel like if we can see some more durability out of Trukks it will go a long way to making Orks a little more viable, but we are still talking max unit size of 10 unless Trukks manage to get bigger on the inside. I'm hopeful, but trying to stay realistic to the last three editions.
Azreal13 wrote: Hater gonna hate, man. I'd just quit trying.
Internet tone. I have to remember. Shoulda dropped a /s to the end of that. Sorry. Yes, I was attempting to be ironic.
I feel like if we can see some more durability out of Trukks it will go a long way to making Orks a little more viable, but we are still talking max unit size of 10 unless Trukks manage to get bigger on the inside. I'm hopeful, but trying to stay realistic to the last three editions.
Maybe trukks get back their 2nd Edition "if you can stack 'em, you can transport 'em" rule?
casvalremdeikun wrote: Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.
As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.
I think the ability to bounce into more assaults and Initiative being gone will help Orks out quite a bit. I am skeptical, but I would love to see them be decent.
Adding the durability of Trukks to my list of improvements. It will take a bit of sustained firepower to pop a truck on turn 1, and then the unit inside of it. Going 2nd won't be the death knell it used to be.
As long as my Devastators can blow your stupid trukk up, I am all for it. I still want to be able to run stuff down with a Rhino as well.
ian wrote: There is also a factor of people's skill level , if your a really good player you could play a less effective army and still win , if your always winning and your playing equal armies then you need to hamper your army or you will be that guy ,which is made so much worse if your a good player and a good army < this is the really problem with balance . I'm really glad they have kept in more randomness as it creates those moments that everybody cares about . In my experience when fighting close combat armies it's been a race against time to see if I could kill them before they got to me which has been a lot of fun ,if the new rules can make this feel like a close run thing I will be happy
Me being the CC guy used to love hurtling toward you in my truks and looted wagons not knowing weather or not I would make it, if I made it, it still did not mean that I would win it really depended on how well you had placed your guns, I found this to be the case in almost all games in 5th edition.
Over all it just felt balanced and I'm sure there are many people who will agree I even saw a poll about what edition was the best and 5th had 50% of the votes from all of the editions combined.
What is really interesting is the two weakest army's in 5th are now the 2 most powerful Eldar and tau, I honestly think they changed the meta to sell more models.
Plumbumbarum wrote: CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.
Removing one of the last sources of gameplay depth in the movement phase would mean it's rubbish, yes. You should add actual depth, not remove the last tiny bits of it. The gameplay was already point and click simplistic but at least there were reasons for flanking manouvers - now it will only take simplifying the cover rules and you might just as well make it a card game.
I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.
I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.
Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.
It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Forming and expressing that opinion when you know, categorically, that you're not in possession of all the information is just not a very smart thing to do.
I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.
I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.
Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.
It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?
Azreal13 wrote: Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Forming and expressing that opinion when you know, categorically, that you're not in possession of all the information is just not a very smart thing to do.
But I said "if"! And again, if that aspect of movement and positioning is removed, the edition will be rubbish, a huge step back etc. If.
I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.
I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.
Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.
It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?
Then why are you in this thread?
Why not? I spent years analysing the game and am interested in strategy games in general, especialy the topic of depth. What GW does with the ruleset is interesting no matter if I play it or not.
Also, maybe I want to reignite that spark? Not sure myself tbh. It is a terribly time consuming hobby.
And yes I'm out anyway. Wish you people that 8th turns out good and you have heaps of fun out of it.
Azreal13 wrote: Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Forming and expressing that opinion when you know, categorically, that you're not in possession of all the information is just not a very smart thing to do.
But I said "if"! And again, if that aspect of movement and positioning is removed, the edition will be rubbish, a huge step back etc. If.
I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.
I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.
Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.
It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?
Then why are you in this thread?
Why not? I spent years analysing the game and am interested in strategy games in general, especialy the topic of depth. What GW does with the ruleset is interesting no matter if I play it or not.
Also, maybe I want to reignite that spark? Not sure myself tbh. It is a terribly time consuming hobby.
And yes I'm out anyway. Wish you people that 8th turns out good and you have heaps of fun out of it.
Why do flanking maneuvers matter when there is virtually no other aspect of flanking in the game? Why does it matter so much to flank a model with an armor value when "similar" units can't be flanked. By that logic you should give everything a facing and be weaker in the sides/rear regardless of unit type.
In the current edition of 40k there is NO flanking either because no one uses garbage vehicles, instead all you see are monstrous creatures.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: I clearly said this kind of ruleset was "destined to create a flip-flopping balance of power"
And you replied :
"This is not true at all, close combat was decent in previous editions, and even tipped the scales at some points"
<taps microphone> Is this thing on?
And you missed his point. Balance was much better before(not perfect obviously since perfect is impossible). Just because GW has screwed it now doesn't mean it's not possible.
It's possible to have shock horror situation where both are viable. It's been done fairly decently before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote: A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
Fixed in stats at least so at best you can hope for bonus/penalty for shooting at different angle.
Plumbumbarum wrote: CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.
Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.
But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.
They said vehicles will have statlines like troops. So it's gonna be fixed.
Actually just because they have statline doesn't mean it has to be fixed. Actually there would be no game rule reason why you couldn't have easier time wounding SPACE MARINE shooting him from side but logically that doesn't make much sense as tactical marine's armour is much less dependant on angle of attack(now getting shot from multiple directions could have destabilizing effect but that's more for psychology than having weaker side armour). But for vehicles that's actually only sensible and quite possible if wanted.
A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.
...but would invalidate the simplification with a pile of exceptions (it's a 12-page ruleset remember!). Banking on one statline, apart from special vehicles (perhaps Russ has front bonus), but most being fixed.
Vehicle armour facings weren't really part of rulebook before either. That 12 pages won't cover unit datasheets where vehicle facings would logically be anyway as those are VERY much vehicle specific rather than universal rule(some vehicles have stronger side armour related to front armour than others. Extreme case being land raider where they are equal while chimera has very much weaker side than front).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kirasu wrote: Why do flanking maneuvers matter when there is virtually no other aspect of flanking in the game? Why does it matter so much to flank a model with an armor value when "similar" units can't be flanked. By that logic you should give everything a facing and be weaker in the sides/rear regardless of unit type.
In the current edition of 40k there is NO flanking either because no one uses garbage vehicles, instead all you see are monstrous creatures.
Except infantry etc don't really have weaker side armour like vehicles have...
And no facing leads to the stupid visualities like side moving predators etc.
Except infantry etc don't really have weaker side armour like vehicles have...
And no facing leads to the stupid visualities like side moving predators etc.
Is that so? What about the stupid visual of monstrous creatures walking backwards? or soldiers with shields having them facing the wrong way? There are MANY examples of non-vehicle units which should also have weaker flanks to attack as to think that infantry don't have stronger armor in certain areas is a bit silly. You armor the area you most anticipate the bulk of an attack to come from.
I rather have faster gameplay than deal with ideas of "correct visuals" when the person clearly doesn't care about consistency, ONLY what they consider "correct"
Example 1: Tervigon
Weaker front or rear armor you think?
Spoiler:
Example 2: Space Marine Bikes
Seems to me the front of the bike would protect the rider compared to the rear or side.
Spoiler:
Example 3: Bullgryns
Is it your belief that the placement of these shields offers the same protection from the rear?
Spoiler:
The point of this is to illustrate that armor values are NOT more tactical nor do facings make any sense if you apply them to only vehicles. Why is a Riptide a MC but a dreadnought isn't and thus the dreadnought has a supposed weakspot?
The drastic swings between "Shooty armies are all powerful, burn the assault troops" to " Guns are done! Assault is broken!" as information is slowly revealed is hilarious. (If a little pathetic)
2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.
The whole game is an abstract simulation of armed conflict. (which is meant to be happening in real time) The utterly absurd comments along the lines of "It just makes no sense that lumbering unit X is able to achieve a charge of 12" when speedy gonzales unit Y only makes it 2" are laughable. Everything that is happening is meant to be happening simultaneously within the chaos of a battlefield. It makes perfect sense.
2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.
So why is there nothing to simulate this fog for weapons firing clear across the battlefield? But only for situations where things are literally close enough to touch each other?
The whole game is an abstract simulation of armed conflict. (which is meant to be happening in real time) The utterly absurd comments along the lines of "It just makes no sense that lumbering unit X is able to achieve a charge of 12" when speedy gonzales unit Y only makes it 2" are laughable. Everything that is happening is meant to be happening simultaneously within the chaos of a battlefield. It makes perfect sense.
No the whole game is a game and all paths to victory should be roughly equivalent. By putting a layer of random in for Assault that Shooting can simply bypass that, as it stands, isn't the case.
Azreal13 wrote: No the whole game is a game and all paths to victory should be roughly equivalent. By putting a layer of random in for Assault that Shooting can simply bypass that, as it stands, isn't the case.
So you think assault is overpowered now that you want to nerf it by giving them some fixed assault range? You do realize that helps shooty armies more than assault right? Shooty armies can easily skirt around with 100% impunity while pouring fire. Assault units goes from having to endure even more shooting before finally manage to corner enemy. Assumign they haven't been blow off by then.
Now at least shooty units either have to choose do they want to maximize firepower or risk getting into combat.
Except infantry etc don't really have weaker side armour like vehicles have...
And no facing leads to the stupid visualities like side moving predators etc.
Is that so? What about the stupid visual of monstrous creatures walking backwards? or soldiers with shields having them facing the wrong way? There are MANY examples of non-vehicle units which should also have weaker flanks to attack as to think that infantry don't have stronger armor in certain areas is a bit silly. You armor the area you most anticipate the bulk of an attack to come from.
Shields are bit faster to move around than turning vehicle around so there abstraction works. And monstorous creatures could benefit from same rule but more crucially there's less issue with monstorous creatures moving differently as they don't really gain anything from pointing where-ever. With vehicles they gain a LOT by moving up sideways so that's what you will see. With monsters due to nature of them being on more or less round bases(or even round bases) it's neutral. With vehicles you WILL see players moving them side by side as only idiots or newbies won't do that.
With monsters models don't encourage that. With vehicles it becomes mandatory.
2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.
So why is there nothing to simulate this fog for weapons firing clear across the battlefield? But only for situations where things are literally close enough to touch each other?
There is. It's called rolling to hit, rolling to would and rolling to save. As well as cover rules and previous actions affecting whether or not unit can shoot. Or should all variation be purely measurement based.
Azreal13 wrote: No the whole game is a game and all paths to victory should be roughly equivalent. By putting a layer of random in for Assault that Shooting can simply bypass that, as it stands, isn't the case.
So you think assault is overpowered now that you want to nerf it by giving them some fixed assault range? You do realize that helps shooty armies more than assault right? Shooty armies can easily skirt around with 100% impunity while pouring fire. Assault units goes from having to endure even more shooting before finally manage to corner enemy. Assumign they haven't been blow off by then.
Now at least shooty units either have to choose do they want to maximize firepower or risk getting into combat.
No, I want a game where I lose based on my bad decisions or win based on making good ones. Not one where I experience the wrong end of a run of dice rolls at the wrong moment.
2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.
So why is there nothing to simulate this fog for weapons firing clear across the battlefield? But only for situations where things are literally close enough to touch each other?
There is. It's called rolling to hit, rolling to would and rolling to save. As well as cover rules and previous actions affecting if a unit can shoot or not.
Oh, so Assault doesn't have to do any of those things now?!!!11!
No, I want a game where I lose based on my bad decisions or win based on making good ones. Not one where I experience the wrong end of a run of dice rolls at the wrong moment.
I'm sorry, but you are literally playing the wrong game then 100%
2 D6 is not random. This has been explained countless times on this thread and others. I suggest you read those explanations.
If the dumb gak continues to outweigh the good progress, I'll just remain not playing it as I have been since early 7th. (Which, incidentally, is one of only two editions that featured random Assault distance, and would likely be in for a shout, alongside 6th, as one of the least popular editions of the game for many.)
tneva82 wrote: Shooty armies can easily skirt around with 100% impunity while pouring fire. .
Which is easily fixed.
- Make charge ranges a fixed distance.
- Make sure that armies that rely on assault troops have 1: sufficient access to transports, outflanking, deep striking, or other methods of getting across the board faster and/or 2: sufficient toughness to withstand incoming fire and/or 3: enough numbers to ensure that there will be some of
them left by the time they make it into combat.
- Force units to choose between standing still and firing at full effect, or moving and firing at reduced effect.
We've had fixed charge distances before. With a couple of notable exceptions (Eldar and their cheesy Jetbikes) shooty armies skirting around incoming assaulters simply wasn't that big an issue, because while they were busy running away they weren't killing the incoming troops.
Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments. Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.
Luck, change, balancing the odds and thinking on ones feet are all things that 2xD6 charges impart on the game. All good things. IMO.
Hollow wrote: Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments. Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.
Luck, change, balancing the odds and thinking on ones feet are all things that 2xD6 charges impart on the game. All good things. IMO.
Hollow wrote: What makes me think you're playing it? 12k+ posts on a forum dedicated to the game. I know, silly me right?
Dakka isn't a 40K forum, and I've been here for years.
Speaking of pedantics... now I'm starting to understand why you are so strongly in favour of set ranges.
"I think you'll find that is 5.9 inches! Failed charge! Mwahahahaa"
Funny how for ~15yrs, charge range for everyone (barring special case units and the rare special rule) was set at 6", and there were no complaints of 'gaming the system'.
Hollow wrote: Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments. Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.
Luck, change, balancing the odds and thinking on ones feet are all things that 2xD6 charges impart on the game. All good things. IMO.
I guess you have no idea how that sounds... Replace "charge" with shooting. What exactly is the difference? Set shooting ranges allow the system to be gamed also. It is after all a game?
You do realize that you can simply replace the stats of a melee weapon range from "-" to "2D6" and it would be basically the same thing as a "shooting attack". As stated, why does one kind of attack have a random range when the other doesn't? Do you really believe that a salvo from a Riptide Wing formation is weaker than a bunch of loser marines charging with chainswords?
Speaking of pedantics... now I'm starting to understand why you are so strongly in favour of set ranges.
"I think you'll find that is 5.9 inches! Failed charge! Mwahahahaa"
Sorry, I think you'll find that is 12.1 inches? Failed shooting attack? I mean come on, you act like shooting doesn't have the same differences of opinion.
Hollow wrote: Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments. Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.
Luck, change, balancing the odds and thinking on ones feet are all things that 2xD6 charges impart on the game. All good things. IMO.
Vryce wrote: Funny how for ~15yrs, charge range for everyone (barring special case units and the rare special rule) was set at 6", and there were no complaints of 'gaming the system'.
I played for all of those years. (Fantasy as well, for longer) and as others have mentioned, the time it took for people to try and carefully position troops so as to try and game the system, was laborious and sucked a lot of fun out of the game. 2xD6 charge is a better system. It isn't completely random, is faster, dynamic and allows for variation.
The reason it isn't done for shooting is like saying "Why isn't everything just decided with a X2d6 roll" because that would be boring and this is a game. Different things are decided in different ways.
Hollow wrote: Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments.
I'm not seeing how fixed charge distance would cause more arguments than the random system.
Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.
That's an argument for everything being random. It's not an argument for some movement being random, and some other movement being a fixed distance.
You get your random effect through the actual combat resolution, or through the application of Overwatch. There is no specific need for the movement to be random... but even if there is, there is no specific need for it to be so random.
A range of a couple of inches would be enough to allow or deny a charge on random chance. A range of 10 inches is just ridiculous.
I played for all of those years. (Fantasy as well, for longer) and as others have mentioned, the time it took for people to try and carefully position troops so as to try and game the system, was laborious and sucked a lot of fun out of the game.
I saw no particular change in people taking time to position their models when random charge distances were introduced. Whatever system is in place, people who don't want their models assaulted will do what they can to avoid the assault.
I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y
X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?
Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?
I played for all of those years. (Fantasy as well, for longer) and as others have mentioned, the time it took for people to try and carefully position troops so as to try and game the system, was laborious and sucked a lot of fun out of the game. 2xD6 charge is a better system. It isn't completely random, is faster, dynamic and allows for variation.
I question pretty much every opinion you've posted in this thread. How does a SET charge distance take MORE time vs a random charge that requires more calculation of probability? All you have to do is put your models MORE than 6" away and voila you cannot be charged!
It's fine to just say "I like random charge because I do" instead of using a bunch of factually incorrect examples to prove your point.
Robin5t wrote: Wording of the second part is interesting. I wonder if we might see things like spear-type weapons getting a longer reach.
We already have the Custodian Guard with guardian spears which I imagine will get a longer reach.
Its a virtual certainty that there will be melee weapons ranges of 1-3". Large monsters like Greater daemons in AOS can have attack range of 2-3" for there melee weapons. So the larger Nids, and melee walker like the Ork Deff Dred, and Furioso Dreadnoughts will likely have greater reach as well. Then you have things like Grey Knight Halberds, whips, and power lances etc.
The big thing with fixed charge distances was no premeasuring, you couldn't move exactly outside charge range and "game the system" in 40k. You had to eyeball it or go off the knowledge you were out of rapid fire range
Hollow wrote: I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y
X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?
Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?
Condescension and a complete lack of understanding is such a potent combination.
I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y
X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?
Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?
You're confused on the term random. Each D6 you roll is independent of the others and IS random in terms of what result is rolled. You CANNOT predict the outcome and therefore it is random.
However, the PROBABILITY of rolling a 7 is higher because more dice results add up to that.
"Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy."
You cannot predict WHICH result you will get which means, it is infact, random. The only way a charge is not random is if you conduct the same charge A LOT of times... however that leads to...
"The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e., independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false. This fallacy can arise in many practical situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling, where such mistakes are common among players."
The gambler's fallacy is actually a huge problem among wargamers and rpg players because they tend to believe in "luck" or "bad dice" or whatever superstitious BS drives people to discount science :p
Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?
Its gonna be a bit pedantic, but I disagree. Weighted random is still random.
Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable.
A thing can be random and still skewed along a distribution; that's the whole point random walk monte carlo markov chains; you machine learn against a distribution.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: The big thing with fixed charge distances was no premeasuring, you couldn't move exactly outside charge range and "game the system" in 40k. You had to eyeball it or go off the knowledge you were out of rapid fire range
Most players with more than a few games under their belt could estimate 8" fairly accurately, from my experience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollow wrote: I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y
X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?
Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?
Who was it complaining about pedantry a moment ago?
The fact that there is not an equal probability of getting any of the possible results on the die roll is a part of what makes it pointless. There's no point having a system that gives you a potential 12" charge if you're always going to play on the assumption that your charge is most likely going to be 7-8 inches. Aside from the rare outlier where you try to charge a unit a foot away because it's the last turn and you have nothing to lose, you never actually use that other 4". So it might as well not be there. If the vast majority of the time your charge is going to be 8", you might as well just make the charge range 8" and eliminate an unneccessary dice roll.
It's fine to just say "I like random charge because I do" instead of using a bunch of factually incorrect examples to prove your point.
I'm not the one saying that X2D6 is a "Random charge" it's not. That is a factually incorrect statement. I don't see how I have given any factually incorrect examples.
As for anecdotal evidence, my 20+ years experience in gaming has shown me that if you have set ranges, then a lot more time is given towards strategically placing units and trying to guestimate distances. Just ask any fantasy player how long the movement phases lasted with people squinting and trying to nudge movement rays into the perfect distance in order to try and achieve the charge. Boring.
Now, to try and expand on why I think it is entirely reasonable for charges to have a X2D6 charge and for shooting to have set distances.
Firstly. This is game with many different phases, with each phase having it's own little internal dynamics. In order for the game to be interesting, to provide some variation and for each phase to have its own merits, I think having a bit of difference between them is crucial.
As to why I think shooting is fundamentally different in terms of a projectile traversing a distance compared to a "being" traversing a particular distance. Let me give you an example.
Man A stands at point B and shoots a gun across X distance to hit a target. Across that distance, the terrain is rocky in parts, muddy in others with bullets whizzing through the air and every few meters is punctuated with an explosion or corpse. Make man A shoot 10 times and measure how long it takes for the bullet to leave his gun, traverse the distance and hit the target. I'm guessing that the time will be almost exactly the same every time. Bang, bang, bang. Fairly reliable yeah? Now... have man A try and run that distance, time him. Have him do it 10 times. I'm guessing that due to the fact that his movement would be affected by so many more variables, Including the fact that he is a being. The times would not be the same. Infact, I'm guessing they would be wildly different. (Especially that one time when his boot got stuck in the mud and he fell over)
You see. The variables in regards to distance, in being able to be traversed, by a being on the ground and a projectile flying through the air, ARE vastly different. That is why a set range for weapons makes sense and why a charge needs to have something different.
Then why not add random range and/or sight distance to the shooting phase?
That is a factually incorrect statement.
This is a factually incorrect statement. 2D6 is random. It has a set range of results, but as you cannot predict those results, only the probability of the result based upon the range of possible results, it is still random.
As for anecdotal evidence, my 20+ years experience in gaming has shown me that if you have set ranges, then a lot more time is given towards strategically placing units and trying to guestimate distances.
Which is eliminated by the rules allowing you to measure what you want, when you want. No more guessing ranges.
That is why a set range for weapons makes sense and why a charge needs to have something different.
But if you have set ranges, then a lot more time is given towards strategically placing units and trying to guestimate distances.
Hollow wrote: I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y
X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?
Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?
Condescension and a complete lack of understanding is such a potent combination.
K so i'm officially petitioning anyone with the ability to do so to lock every thread with the word 'charge' in any of it's posts until at least a month after 8th comes out.
It's fine to just say "I like random charge because I do" instead of using a bunch of factually incorrect examples to prove your point.
I'm not the one saying that X2D6 is a "Random charge" it's not. That is a factually incorrect statement. I don't see how I have given any factually incorrect examples.
There are posts above from Kirasu and davou explaining random. Read them.
Your fall-back argument on incorrectly defining random has no real value on the topic being discussed, which is whether a set charge range could or should be used in 8th edition 40k and why it is better or worse that a 2D6" charge range.
Your fall-back argument on incorrectly defining random has no real value on the topic being discussed, which is whether a set charge range could or should be used in 8th edition 40k and why it is better or worse that a 2D6" charge range.
Only 5/6 posts above this one I have detailed exactly why I think that X2D6 charge should be used and why I think it makes sense for it to be used. I suggest YOU read that one.
No, I want a game where I lose based on my bad decisions or win based on making good ones. Not one where I experience the wrong end of a run of dice rolls at the wrong moment.
Kirasu wrote: And this conversation has 0 worth now. Looking forward to the new GW post!
Indeed for the love of all that is holy or unholy or indeed whatever it is that you love, let us put to rest the argument about random charge ranges. It does none of us any good and we're clearly stuck with the mechanic for at minimum a year. There will be more than enough time to rehash all of it when proposed rule changes are debated a year from now.
Indeed. Enough about X2D6 charges. (Although it is a shame that some people who don't play the game, won't play the game, because of a system which is balanced, sensible, understandable, fun, dynamic, interesting and proven to be the best )
Now that's out of the way, let's agree to disagree on whatever position we may or may not support.
I am interested in an edition where placement and positioning are important - X-wing has plenty of that, and its a good test of skill.
Curious that we haven't seen melee weapons yet. Hmm.
Hollow wrote: I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y
X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?
Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?
-=Edit=- Removed the incredibly rude comment. Don't do this again. -Lorek
I had a big mek in mega armour attached to a squad of 3 MKs in a recent game I was faced with a IG command squad and stood next to it was a squad of IG storm troopers.
We had just disembarked and moved within 7" of the enemy my BMMA split from the MKs and declared a charge on the command squad and the MKs declared a charge on the storm troopers, the BMMA roled a 7 and the MKs rolled a 6, I wiped the comand squad in 2 rounds of CC the MKs stood still and recived a 2nd rank 3rd rank salvo and were wiped out in 1 turn.
Now due to the lore of random variable my MKs did not make the charge and got mowed down.
Can't stay on topic? I'll move this whole thing to the OT Forum. Then you can argue if random charge distances affect the 2018 Florida governor's race.
This isn't aimed at the most recent post, but at the past few pages. Some of you are getting so het* up that you start arguing instead of discussing. Take a deep breath, relax, and think out your next post before posting it.
The random charge discussion has probably exceeded its welcome here. There's a thread in 40K Discussions on it, for anyone who wants to continue that particular tangent.
Azreal13 wrote: No the whole game is a game and all paths to victory should be roughly equivalent. By putting a layer of random in for Assault that Shooting can simply bypass that, as it stands, isn't the case.
So you think assault is overpowered now that you want to nerf it by giving them some fixed assault range? You do realize that helps shooty armies more than assault right? Shooty armies can easily skirt around with 100% impunity while pouring fire. Assault units goes from having to endure even more shooting before finally manage to corner enemy. Assumign they haven't been blow off by then.
Now at least shooty units either have to choose do they want to maximize firepower or risk getting into combat.
No, I want a game where I lose based on my bad decisions or win based on making good ones. Not one where I experience the wrong end of a run of dice rolls at the wrong moment.
So let's remove all dice rolling from the game.
Problem with no dice rolling there is that then you have players god view that is unrealistic. Like it or not battles don't go as general is planned. Order miscommunications, psychological blocks, unexpected bush etc(battlefield isn't as flat and clear as board suggests. There's small brushesh, uneven ground, slight hills etc) to which soldier could trip slowing charge etc etc.
If troops are moving exactly as commander wants that a) leads to very unrealistic game b) leads to boring one where shooty armies have distinct advantage as they can skirt around. Assault armies would struggle to get into combat. Foot armies would be lucky to get into one on turn 5!
tneva82 wrote: Shooty armies can easily skirt around with 100% impunity while pouring fire. .
Which is easily fixed.
- Make charge ranges a fixed distance.
Fixed distances is precisely what would cause the issue...
When they can move within 0.1" optimizing fire without any fear you get that. It's also 100% unrealistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vryce wrote: Funny how for ~15yrs, charge range for everyone (barring special case units and the rare special rule) was set at 6", and there were no complaints of 'gaming the system'.
The whole random charges vs non random charges debate is futile and leads to nothing because some people just like it while other people hate it, without a chance for consensus (personally I don't care as long as the game plays well), and with it being a preference thing with no way to prove the other side wrong... keeping that discussion going will just derail the thread completely and result in a lock. We already reached the point of posts consisting of pure hyperbole being tossed out by both sides and comments getting increasingly aggressive.
That said, I am still wondering about the possibility of some weapons having more than one 1" of range. What does that effectively mean? E.g. +2" or even +3" inches on top of the 2D6 result when charging to get into melee? Because especially with single models or low model units I don't see the deal with increased "attack range", when you are stuck in combat and get to attack the bonus seems to be rather pointless. Is it for defending units because they don't have a pile in themselves?
How do e.g. spears and other long reach weapons play out in AoS exactly? What are their benefits both in charging, the first assault phase and in multi-turn fights?
Azreal13 wrote: Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Forming and expressing that opinion when you know, categorically, that you're not in possession of all the information is just not a very smart thing to do.
But I said "if"! And again, if that aspect of movement and positioning is removed, the edition will be rubbish, a huge step back etc. If.
I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.
I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.
Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.
It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?
Then why are you in this thread?
Why not? I spent years analysing the game and am interested in strategy games in general, especialy the topic of depth. What GW does with the ruleset is interesting no matter if I play it or not.
Also, maybe I want to reignite that spark? Not sure myself tbh. It is a terribly time consuming hobby.
And yes I'm out anyway. Wish you people that 8th turns out good and you have heaps of fun out of it.
Why do flanking maneuvers matter when there is virtually no other aspect of flanking in the game?
That's not really true. Flanking infantry in cover, you can negate their cover. The way cover worked with emphasis on heroic marines made it less important than it should have been but still, it was there. MCs indeed have no facing and that should change, one should add substantial mechanics instead of removing them.
Actualy, the way cover is supposed to work in 8th (improving the save) makes flanking more important, you always get a bonus for the latter, unless ofc it's also not longer dependent on angle ie hugging cover, you're in cover period or sth. Why improve sth (cover bonus making flanking worth it) and then ruin it (vehicles with same toughness all around).
Kirasu wrote:Why does it matter so much to flank a model with an armor value when "similar" units can't be flanked. By that logic you should give everything a facing and be weaker in the sides/rear regardless of unit type.
Yes facing on everything would be good. To avoid marking and micromanaging infantry, it would be enough to use the mentioned cover mechanics and make charges on models already in combat really devastating, facing really matters in CC and being jumped on the back by a genestealer, already fighting a genestealer should be a death sentence.
Kirasu wrote:
In the current edition of 40k there is NO flanking either because no one uses garbage vehicles, instead all you see are monstrous creatures.
That the current edition is garbage that invalidates entire unit types is no argument for removing depth. Again monstrous creatures should have facing and weaknesess (some guys who appear to have quite a rear like Carnifex or Hive Tyrant, maybe a weaker front and sides heh). Or some rule that makes MCs easier to hit except when you're in their frontal zone and within some threat range. Don't know really, not paid for that but surely one can make up sth better than plain making everything functionaly a token or a paper stand and the whole game a point and click simpleton.
Well, we've been told certain melee weapons and units have an advantage when it comes to fighting order. The two specific examples were Lash Whips and Slaaneshi Daemons.
Looking at AoS, where that mechanism has been lifted from, it seems likely Lashwhips and their ilk, rather than letting your unit strike first, may well force the attacked unit to go last.
If so, that is of course a very powerful ability, particularly for ongoing combats, as it effectively buys you 'me first, me first' for a second round of combat - particularly if weapons do end up having a range like in AoS.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: The whole random charges vs non random charges debate is futile and leads to nothing because some people just like it while other people hate it, without a chance for consensus (personally I don't care as long as the game plays well), and with it being a preference thing with no way to prove the other side wrong... keeping that discussion going will just derail the thread completely and result in a lock. We already reached the point of posts consisting of pure hyperbole being tossed out by both sides and comments getting increasingly aggressive.
That said, I am still wondering about the possibility of some weapons having more than one 1" of range. What does that effectively mean? E.g. +2" or even +3" inches on top of the 2D6 result when charging to get into melee? Because especially with single models or low model units I don't see the deal with increased "attack range", when you are stuck in combat and get to attack the bonus seems to be rather pointless. Is it for defending units because they don't have a pile in themselves?
How do e.g. spears and other long reach weapons play out in AoS exactly? What are their benefits both in charging, the first assault phase and in multi-turn fights?
The benefit is mostly being able to have more models strike, kinda like it was in WHFB.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: The whole random charges vs non random charges debate is futile and leads to nothing because some people just like it while other people hate it, without a chance for consensus (personally I don't care as long as the game plays well), and with it being a preference thing with no way to prove the other side wrong... keeping that discussion going will just derail the thread completely and result in a lock. We already reached the point of posts consisting of pure hyperbole being tossed out by both sides and comments getting increasingly aggressive.
That said, I am still wondering about the possibility of some weapons having more than one 1" of range. What does that effectively mean? E.g. +2" or even +3" inches on top of the 2D6 result when charging to get into melee? Because especially with single models or low model units I don't see the deal with increased "attack range", when you are stuck in combat and get to attack the bonus seems to be rather pointless. Is it for defending units because they don't have a pile in themselves?
How do e.g. spears and other long reach weapons play out in AoS exactly? What are their benefits both in charging, the first assault phase and in multi-turn fights?
The benefit is mostly being able to have more models strike, kinda like it was in WHFB.
There's also the possibility that as per AoS, units not formally engaged in combat, but within their melee range might be able to have a swing. That's dead useful if you take your time to set your formations up to benefit from it.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: The whole random charges vs non random charges debate is futile and leads to nothing because some people just like it while other people hate it, without a chance for consensus (personally I don't care as long as the game plays well), and with it being a preference thing with no way to prove the other side wrong... keeping that discussion going will just derail the thread completely and result in a lock. We already reached the point of posts consisting of pure hyperbole being tossed out by both sides and comments getting increasingly aggressive.
That said, I am still wondering about the possibility of some weapons having more than one 1" of range. What does that effectively mean? E.g. +2" or even +3" inches on top of the 2D6 result when charging to get into melee? Because especially with single models or low model units I don't see the deal with increased "attack range", when you are stuck in combat and get to attack the bonus seems to be rather pointless. Is it for defending units because they don't have a pile in themselves?
How do e.g. spears and other long reach weapons play out in AoS exactly? What are their benefits both in charging, the first assault phase and in multi-turn fights?
Well obvious benefit is that you can pile in more guys into combat with less guys out of reach. Albeit doesn't help much for smaller units. Could also be used to limit number of guys opponent can bring in return and this helps smaller unit. But of course that would assume you can stand at the extent of your range but since you need to get within 1"...Without it say small unit with 3" reach weapons could park 3" from enemy, attack them and large unit, even with 3" pile in, would struggle to get into range to attack back. But as is this won't work all that well.
Yeah h2h weapon ranges would be pretty minor thing in practice. Something like 30 boyz could benefit but of course they have choppas not known for reach
For instance, Grots have a 1" range, and Ironguts (mighty, fighty Ironguts) have a 2" range. With a little care, I deploy an effective skirmish screen of squishy little Grots say 1" in front of my Ironguts, or even as a ring. This prevents most units being able to strike the Ironguts, but lets the Ironguts have their say, safe from Battleshock.
With the right units in the right combos, you can create incredibly nasty combat situations for your foe. Whether we'll see this in 40k remains to be seen.
I recommend 1page40k for a good rule set.
Also... I too took a year off. But if gave me more objectivity... not less
Thanks I'll check it, ussualy prefer making up my own rules though.
I am objective enough btw, I hate dumbing down of movement phase in all games, always praise the opposite and wouldn't say it's some extravagant, unfounded criticism.
Lol at Charles. "Everyone hates it". Doesn't need more than casual browse of this forum to know that's 100% provenly false and not even close of being true.
I like the randomness of charges, but 2D6 is just too random. 6" + D6 charge would be about perfect. You could count on making that 4" charge, but pushing a 10 to 12" charge would still be uncertain.
tneva82 wrote: Lol at Charles. "Everyone hates it". Doesn't need more than casual browse of this forum to know that's 100% provenly false and not even close of being true.
And a casual look at Everyone Banyan's post history shows us that indeed Everyone (Banyan) hates it.
For instance, Grots have a 1" range, and Ironguts (mighty, fighty Ironguts) have a 2" range. With a little care, I deploy an effective skirmish screen of squishy little Grots say 1" in front of my Ironguts, or even as a ring. This prevents most units being able to strike the Ironguts, but lets the Ironguts have their say, safe from Battleshock.
With the right units in the right combos, you can create incredibly nasty combat situations for your foe. Whether we'll see this in 40k remains to be seen.
Also units like protectors with their 3" range can remain far away from an enemy (as piling in is not compulsory) unit with 1" range (especially if it has been spread thin) hitting the unit with full attacks and getting just few attacks back. This has happened to me many times...
For instance, Grots have a 1" range, and Ironguts (mighty, fighty Ironguts) have a 2" range. With a little care, I deploy an effective skirmish screen of squishy little Grots say 1" in front of my Ironguts, or even as a ring. This prevents most units being able to strike the Ironguts, but lets the Ironguts have their say, safe from Battleshock.
With the right units in the right combos, you can create incredibly nasty combat situations for your foe. Whether we'll see this in 40k remains to be seen.
Also units like protectors with their 3" range can remain far away from an enemy (as piling in is not compulsory) unit with 1" range (especially if it has been spread thin) hitting the unit with full attacks and getting just few attacks back. This has happened to me many times...
Yeah but as it is we know already that some aspects of h2h are NOT imported from AOS. In AOS you can keep 3". In 40k you have to get within 1" to be in combat so lots of usability goes. Even at best you have at least 1 model within 1" of enemy model and somehow I doubt GW writes rule so that one model HAS to be 1" but rest could be 3" away. Would feel odd.
At first I was sure they would be bringing weapon ranges but on 2nd thought due to what we know about 8th ed rules already and that there's not really THAT much high reach weapons not sure does it really add much. I have suspicion if there's any such rules it's bespoke rules at most.
Weazel wrote: I like the randomness of charges, but 2D6 is just too random. 6" + D6 charge would be about perfect. You could count on making that 4" charge, but pushing a 10 to 12" charge would still be uncertain.
I'm happy with random charge. I gave up on the older GW games as the tiptoeing around to stay just outside the predictable charge range, or make sure you got the 'charge' next turn etc made them not 'feel' like wargames. Sure it was a form of tactics, but it felt more like chess than a battle. Having to make decisions based on a less predictable charge distance provides plenty of tactics but with far less gameyness IMO.
You are happy with knowing you can make a some minimum (4") charge? In the teasers so far you have a threat range of Move + 2 + 1 as a minimum, that is your move phase + 2D6 + the 1" range to the enemy model. You still have a minimum 100% threat range. So in your example you know at the start of the turn your 4" move unit can charge that unit that is 7" away. (caveat below)
If it is anything like AoS you there will also be a number of bonuses to that, in AoS banners or musicians often provide another +1", many leaders can provide bonuses, sometimes to many units. Some assault units get larger charge ranges due to 3D6 take highest 2, or other abilities. Battalion bonuses can provide bonuses etc. Then there are other move abilities, so there can be extra movement that not charge related effectively provides more threat range.
Whilst we will have to wait and see, I expect there will be a lot more to who can charge how far if you want to go that way.
caveat from above. I haven't followed close enough, but if like AoS you have to stop at 3" from an enemy in your move phase then without modifiers to the charge roll you will still fail the charge on a snake eyes. For the most part that is a non issue in AoS, as most assaulty units/armies will have a +1 or something.
At the end of the day all the dice do, be it D6 or 2D6, is force you to make decisions based on a probability. Whether you have move +some dice or just some dice you have a range of probabilities to work out and decide on what you are doing.
Move + D6 increases the chance of shorter range charges, and in a move + charge system provides a much wider guaranteed threat range for a given move stat. It might be worth considering that a M + D6 system might have resulted in a lower move rate for assault units in order to tame that, as Move + Move + d6 would have made some units be across the board far to quickly with no major chance of failure.
Weazel wrote: I like the randomness of charges, but 2D6 is just too random. 6" + D6 charge would be about perfect. You could count on making that 4" charge, but pushing a 10 to 12" charge would still be uncertain.
I'm happy with random charge. I gave up on the older GW games as the tiptoeing around to stay just outside the predictable charge range, or make sure you got the 'charge' next turn etc made them not 'feel' like wargames. Sure it was a form of tactics, but it felt more like chess than a battle. Having to make decisions based on a less predictable charge distance provides plenty of tactics but with far less gameyness IMO.
You are happy with knowing you can make a some minimum (4") charge? In the teasers so far you have a threat range of Move + 2 + 1 as a minimum, that is your move phase + 2D6 + the 1" range to the enemy model. You still have a minimum 100% threat range. So in your example you know at the start of the turn your 4" move unit can charge that unit that is 7" away. (caveat below)
If it is anything like AoS you there will also be a number of bonuses to that, in AoS banners or musicians often provide another +1", many leaders can provide bonuses, sometimes to many units. Some assault units get larger charge ranges due to 3D6 take highest 2, or other abilities. Battalion bonuses can provide bonuses etc. Then there are other move abilities, so there can be extra movement that not charge related effectively provides more threat range.
Whilst we will have to wait and see, I expect there will be a lot more to who can charge how far if you want to go that way.
caveat from above. I haven't followed close enough, but if like AoS you have to stop at 3" from an enemy in your move phase then without modifiers to the charge roll you will still fail the charge on a snake eyes. For the most part that is a non issue in AoS, as most assaulty units/armies will have a +1 or something.
At the end of the day all the dice do, be it D6 or 2D6, is force you to make decisions based on a probability. Whether you have move +some dice or just some dice you have a range of probabilities to work out and decide on what you are doing.
Move + D6 increases the chance of shorter range charges, and in a move + charge system provides a much wider guaranteed threat range for a given move stat. It might be worth considering that a M + D6 system might have resulted in a lower move rate for assault units in order to tame that, as Move + Move + d6 would have made some units be across the board far to quickly with no major chance of failure.
Well, I've taken overwatch fire to the face and snake-eyed my charge distance too many times, lol. Call me salty.
For instance, Grots have a 1" range, and Ironguts (mighty, fighty Ironguts) have a 2" range. With a little care, I deploy an effective skirmish screen of squishy little Grots say 1" in front of my Ironguts, or even as a ring. This prevents most units being able to strike the Ironguts, but lets the Ironguts have their say, safe from Battleshock.
With the right units in the right combos, you can create incredibly nasty combat situations for your foe. Whether we'll see this in 40k remains to be seen.
Also units like protectors with their 3" range can remain far away from an enemy (as piling in is not compulsory) unit with 1" range (especially if it has been spread thin) hitting the unit with full attacks and getting just few attacks back. This has happened to me many times...
Yeah but as it is we know already that some aspects of h2h are NOT imported from AOS. In AOS you can keep 3". In 40k you have to get within 1" to be in combat so lots of usability goes. Even at best you have at least 1 model within 1" of enemy model and somehow I doubt GW writes rule so that one model HAS to be 1" but rest could be 3" away. Would feel odd.
At first I was sure they would be bringing weapon ranges but on 2nd thought due to what we know about 8th ed rules already and that there's not really THAT much high reach weapons not sure does it really add much. I have suspicion if there's any such rules it's bespoke rules at most.
Well it's not so different, as in AoS you have to finish the charge within ½", so actually you have to be even closer. That doesn't prevent you having the other guys further back and gaining substancial benefits on flanking a shorter reach unit.
That said, having the "engaged range" only in 1" would make supporting other units quite tricky. Stuff like spears on second rank wouldn't work too easily, so it might be that the range of the melee weapons doesn't have so big impact in 40k, which would be a shame as it's really nice mechanic.
I'm 50/50 on random versus set values. As in I like to have both in the mechanic, if that makes sense. Set movement plus D6 is how I'd like it. But, I can live with 2D6 charge ranges. I'm OK with it.
Did they say what was going to be on show today? It's combat weapons isn't it? This should be good. I'm really keen to see if chainswords might get an AP value. I've always felt like they should.
Did they say what was going to be on show today? It's combat weapons isn't it? This should be good. I'm really keen to see if chainswords might get an AP value. I've always felt like they should.
Neither side of this story has the real truth of the matter, yet.
a player out of their charge, but more to make it impossible for faster armies to perfectly predict their end positions in such a way as to always avoid taking a charge from a unit with slower static move values. But in general, you don't want to punish a player for superior positioning either, so ideally you want something with a curve so that long shots are less likely. This curve allows for risk assessment in a way that even a smaller, linear variance doesn't. So why aren't gun ranges random? Because the kiting problem exists far less with most weapons (outside of the shortest ranged ones) and because those same enemies are using weapons with similar ranges (including the shortest ranged ones) and so unless they have a unit with significantly higher range (at which point 
Tank riders anyone....
