Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:06:25


Post by: Daedalus81


Everyone should watch the stream from today, because the thought process presented by Stu is just perfect.

Not everyone can overwatch all the time! It is now a stratagem. No more rolling dice just because. That also means overwatch ONCE per turn.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:07:29


Post by: Amishprn86


The new OW is amazing honestly and its rules like this that will make 9th a better game.


[Thumb - image1.png]
[Thumb - image2.png]


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:08:44


Post by: Daedalus81


Oh, also - defensible terrain gives O/W on 5s or +1 to hit in the next fight phase.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:11:03


Post by: Umbros



Fantastic change. Removes unnecessary rolling and in an igougo system, is simply more logical. It was always punitive to charging units, with no equivalent punishment. Very happy.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:13:04


Post by: Daedalus81


Umbros wrote:

Fantastic change. Removes unnecessary rolling and in an igougo system, is simply more logical. It was always punitive to charging units, with no equivalent punishment. Very happy.


Waiting for conspiracy theorists to come in and tell us how this is a strategy to sell less or more of some unit.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:14:05


Post by: Gadzilla666


This is excellent. Buffs melee units, cuts down on pointless rolling, and makes terrain more meaningful. I like it.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:15:55


Post by: Daedalus81


This also means if I charge with trash, you opt to not O/W, and I make it in then you can't O/W against my next charger.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:17:07


Post by: tulun


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Umbros wrote:

Fantastic change. Removes unnecessary rolling and in an igougo system, is simply more logical. It was always punitive to charging units, with no equivalent punishment. Very happy.


Waiting for conspiracy theorists to come in and tell us how this is a strategy to sell less or more of some unit.


I mean, they are a model selling company, technically everything they do is a strategy to sell models.

Regardless, this is unequivocally good. Their reasoning was sound.

Overwatch was either:

1) Pointless. You fire 30 slugga shots into a knight, which usually does nothing, but there's no reason to NOT do it on the off chance it does. Wastes everyone's time.
2) Overly consequential. With stacking overwatch buffs, it made assaulting difficult to pointless. (Iron Hands example: 5+ Overwatch with re-rolling all hits is basically a free round of shooting at BS4).

They will probably help armies like Tau by giving them a few units with innate overwatch, as they said on the stream.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:20:54


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Overwatch wasn't a problem to begin with and now several sub factions need to be fixed because they're just a bonus to Overwatch and that's it.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:21:34


Post by: Daedalus81


tulun wrote:

They will probably help armies like Tau by giving them a few units with innate overwatch, as they said on the stream.


T'au still get the linked overwatch. This makes the T'au Sept a lot less special so they might feel more inclined to move away from it.

I mean, they are a model selling company, technically everything they do is a strategy to sell models.


Yes - a feat accomplished without bending rules though. There are lovely people who have been clamoring on and on about GW not wanting to sell horde models and screwing over melee to sell other models. I look forward to the mental acrobatics to rationalize the next jump.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:22:28


Post by: tauist


Only generic unit overwatch will go to 1 unit per turn. They also said that overwatch can now also come via a keyword in a units datasheet. Tau was mentioned as an example faction which will have some units with the OVERWATCH keyword.

That defensible terrain is a significant change. Making overwatch hit on a 5+ will be a great buff for Tau, and getting +1 to hit in CC will be huge for anyone with a lot of attacks.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:22:50


Post by: Daedalus81


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Overwatch wasn't a problem to begin with and now several sub factions need to be fixed because they're just a bonus to Overwatch and that's it.


Sure it was. You ever try charging Centurions? And as mentioned above have you ever waited for someone to overwatch with garbage guns just to get a lucky wound?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:24:57


Post by: harlokin


I've only just bought a Vexator Mask!....Damn you GW!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:25:07


Post by: Daedalus81


tauist wrote:
Tau was mentioned as an example faction which will have some units with the OVERWATCH keyword.


'Cool Headed' was the rule. Mentioned mostly as a campaign bonus, but we'll see units with it. If they give that to all marines then I'll turn myself in.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:25:51


Post by: Sterling191


 Daedalus81 wrote:

T'au still get the linked overwatch. This makes the T'au Sept a lot less special so they might feel more inclined to move away from it.


There is zero point in playing Tau sept unless you want Shadownsun's double Kauyon now. Turning their sept ability into a once-per turn CP fuelled ability makes it instantly trash.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:25:57


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Overwatch wasn't a problem to begin with and now several sub factions need to be fixed because they're just a bonus to Overwatch and that's it.


Sure it was. You ever try charging Centurions? And as mentioned above have you ever waited for someone to overwatch with garbage guns just to get a lucky wound?

People keep mentioning "whatabout Centurions and Aggressors", but that's literally two units. Losing it about a rule because of two units PROBABLY means there's more going on to those two units. You know what would've helped? You can't reroll Overwatch shots. How elegant a solution.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:27:33


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Yeah, I'm all in favour. Melee gets such a shot in the arm from this, and makes those rare moments of Overwatch all the more impactful because you chose to take that chance, or that unit is explicitly *designed* to have that support function.

I'd quite like if flamer-like weapons still got to do Overwatch, even with the changes, but that might be too much.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:28:37


Post by: Blackie


Never liked overwatch, it adds something for shooting unit in a game in which shooting is already king. It also slows down the game, since it's more unneeded dice rolling.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:29:06


Post by: tauist


 Daedalus81 wrote:
tauist wrote:
Tau was mentioned as an example faction which will have some units with the OVERWATCH keyword.


'Cool Headed' was the rule. Mentioned mostly as a campaign bonus, but we'll see units with it. If they give that to all marines then I'll turn myself in.


I doubt many marine units will have it. Marines live for close combat, do they not? LOL been watching alot of that Emperor text to speech TV show on the tubes lately


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:32:35


Post by: kurhanik


I like it, I just hope they fix the rules a bit for factions/subfactions that are built around overwatch (Mordians immediately come to mind). Having your special faction rule be "overwatch on a 5+" now a 1/turn thing that costs CP kind of sucks. Still, fix up the few groups that have this issue and it should be fine.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:42:15


Post by: the_scotsman


Extremely good change. Finally, a preview for something that actually contributes to fixing problems with 8th.

Unfortunate that the last terrain rule that seemed like it could provide a good defensive benefit for cheaper units appears to be, strangely, an offensive buff. But it makes sense that there be some kind of anti-melee benefit to terrain as hard cover is bizarrely more of a benefit for the charger than the chargee.

I'm curious as to the rumor about Fall Back as well - rumor has it that there is a stratagem that makes Fall Back ignore tripoint by just allowing you to move thru models in engagement range of you. But I wonder if that's what Fall Back in general is - just a stratagem now. That would most certainly make the hefty price hikes on chaff units and the vehicles/monsters shooting while in combat rule make more sense, if getting in combat meant you are most likely stuck in combat now unless you spend a CP to make 1 unit fall back.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:42:54


Post by: Argive


this is biiiig.

Even with blast rules I think this justifies taking chaff horde of some description.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:45:25


Post by: Kommisar


 harlokin wrote:
I've only just bought a Vexator Mask!....Damn you GW!


that's not the reason you bring one it's just a bonus


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:46:22


Post by: nekooni


tauist wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
tauist wrote:
Tau was mentioned as an example faction which will have some units with the OVERWATCH keyword.


'Cool Headed' was the rule. Mentioned mostly as a campaign bonus, but we'll see units with it. If they give that to all marines then I'll turn myself in.


I doubt many marine units will have it. Marines live for close combat, do they not? LOL been watching alot of that Emperor text to speech TV show on the tubes lately


It's a Crusade "battle trait", so it's not like an USR that some units have on their datasheet.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:47:23


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
tauist wrote:
Tau was mentioned as an example faction which will have some units with the OVERWATCH keyword.


'Cool Headed' was the rule. Mentioned mostly as a campaign bonus, but we'll see units with it. If they give that to all marines then I'll turn myself in.

If they do it won't be all marines. It sounds like something they'd tack on to atsknf. Hopefully they won't.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:47:58


Post by: catbarf


Now if Fall Back is also revealed to be a stratagem, I'll say the biggest problems with melee have been fixed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Overwatch wasn't a problem to begin with and now several sub factions need to be fixed because they're just a bonus to Overwatch and that's it.


I'm sympathetic to subfactions and abilities that will now need to be rebalanced, but it was a problem and the game is better for restricting it.

It was a mechanic that 90% of the time just wasted time with ineffective rolling, and in the remaining 10% caused unexpected (significant) results that needlessly penalized the player already facing an uphill battle of getting into melee.

Making it a more situational ability with an actual cost will still keep it occasionally relevant (mostly when stacked with buffs to OW), but will drastically cut down the amount of mindless dice-rolling.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:52:24


Post by: the_scotsman


So, I just noticed from the Aircraft rule...

....Aircraft no longer NEED to fall back.

Aircraft can now make a normal move if they start within engagement range.

That was the biggest thing standing between them and Fall Back being a strat - if it were once per turn, aircraft would be put into the position of insta-dying because they cant fall back sometimes.

interesting...and vehicles and monsters can now shoot in close combat.

Fall back being made a stratagem that explicitly ignores Tripointing would be kind of an interesting idea, particularly if Falling Back also no longer prevented you from shooting.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:56:43


Post by: yukishiro1


Overwatch was not a major issue for melee in 8th. There were so many ways to avoid, either directly, through soakers like repulsors, or through terrain manipulation.

The much bigger issue with melee in 8th was falling back. If the rumors that there will be ways to fall back even when wrapped turn out to be true, that will amount to a far larger nerf to melee than this is a buff.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:58:02


Post by: Grimgold


This and cut them down seem to be GW giving melee a soft landing after loosing three cornering.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 15:59:10


Post by: catbarf


yukishiro1 wrote:
Overwatch was not a major issue for melee in 8th. There were so many ways to avoid, either directly, through soakers like repulsors, or through terrain manipulation.

The much bigger issue with melee in 8th was falling back. If the rumors that there will be a strat to allow you to fall back even when wrapped is a thing, that will do far more to undermine melee than the overwatch changes will do to boost it.


I agree with this- Fall Back is the bigger problem and I want to see how they resolve it. If Fall Back stays the same and a stratagem is added to allow units to ignore wrapping, then that will really suck- but if Fall Back becomes only a stratagem, and allows units to ignore wrapping, then I'd say that both solves the problem and removes the annoying mechanic of tri-pointing from the game.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:00:06


Post by: yukishiro1


 Grimgold wrote:
This and cut them down seem to be GW giving melee a soft landing after loosing three cornering.


Yep, this is what I'm afraid of. They're showing people a bunch of positive stuff first, only to deliver the hammer blow that wrapping is no longer a thing.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:00:16


Post by: Spoletta


With overwatch gone, you are free to always try a 12" charge like in AoS. That is really a big boost to melee. There is still that rumor going around that if you multi charge you need to reach all targets, which makes a lot of sense with overwatch like this.

In general I like it.

Making Fall back a strat too would reign in the huge advantages of the flying keyword.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:03:00


Post by: yukishiro1


 catbarf wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Overwatch was not a major issue for melee in 8th. There were so many ways to avoid, either directly, through soakers like repulsors, or through terrain manipulation.

The much bigger issue with melee in 8th was falling back. If the rumors that there will be a strat to allow you to fall back even when wrapped is a thing, that will do far more to undermine melee than the overwatch changes will do to boost it.


I agree with this- Fall Back is the bigger problem and I want to see how they resolve it. If Fall Back stays the same and a stratagem is added to allow units to ignore wrapping, then that will really suck- but if Fall Back becomes only a stratagem, and allows units to ignore wrapping, then I'd say that both solves the problem and removes the annoying mechanic of tri-pointing from the game.


That would result in a really weird play state where your main goal as a charger would be to charge two or more enemy units and keep them both alive (or more likely, charge one, keep it alive, and consolidate into the other), so that both of them can't fall back because of the limit of once per phase. This seems arguably as gimmicky or more gimmicky than wrapping. It would also result in really gimmicky ways of deploying units in long lines designed specifically to avoid two of your units being engaged. Games could come down to whether you can tag a single model of a second unit or not, not whether you can wrap a single model or not, and I'm not convinced that's any great improvement.


Though it would have the side benefit of nerfing castles and totally boning T'au, which I am all for.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:06:49


Post by: tulun


Although fall back is a major issue, I will wait to see if they've adjusted it.

We've also not yet seen changes to the morale phase, which they've said they've changed. If morale becomes something to concern yourself with, maybe that charge will mean there's not much left of the unit that wants to fall back anyway.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:12:22


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Morale is something they've gotten wrong for basically the entirety of the game. I sincerely doubt it will end up mattering.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:17:53


Post by: catbarf


yukishiro1 wrote:
That would result in a really weird play state where your main goal as a charger would be to charge two or more melee enemy units and keep them both alive (or more likely, charge one, keep it alive, and consolidate into the other), so that both of them can't fall back because of the limit of once per phase. This seems arguably as gimmicky or more gimmicky than wrapping. It would also result in really gimmicky ways of deploying units in long lines designed specifically to avoid two of your units being engaged. Games could come down to whether you can tag a single model of a second unit or not, not whether you can wrap a single model or not, and I'm not convinced that's any great improvement.


We currently have the utterly bizarre play state where your main goal as a charger is to charge one unit, but get close enough that you can Pile In to as many other units as possible, and through Consolidation try to trap at least one model from each squad. Honestly, what you describe feels to me like an upgrade- at the very least, it provides a hard counter to aura-hugging murderball gunlines.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:18:13


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Kommisar wrote:
 harlokin wrote:
I've only just bought a Vexator Mask!....Damn you GW!


that's not the reason you bring one it's just a bonus


indeed and now we can Vect it, not tactical or good use of CP but sometimes the tilt must flow


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:18:33


Post by: harlokin


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Morale is something they've gotten wrong for basically the entirety of the game. I sincerely doubt it will end up mattering.


I hope not. People have a weird fetish for an unfun concept/mechanic.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:19:31


Post by: -Guardsman-


Holy crap! GW just made a change that makes the Dakkadakka community happy!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:20:43


Post by: Insectum7


Spoletta wrote:
With overwatch gone, you are free to always try a 12" charge like in AoS. That is really a big boost to melee. There is still that rumor going around that if you multi charge you need to reach all targets, which makes a lot of sense with overwatch like this.

In general I like it.

Making Fall back a strat too would reign in the huge advantages of the flying keyword.
Yeah, the apparent lack of a drawback to declaring long distance charges worries me a bit, and Overwatch was the mechanic to counter that. I'm interested to see how that plays out over time.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:20:59


Post by: the_scotsman


 harlokin wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Morale is something they've gotten wrong for basically the entirety of the game. I sincerely doubt it will end up mattering.


I hope not. People have a weird fetish for an unfun concept/mechanic.


Personally, not seeing why morale is unfun. A way to make a unit less effective without destroying it is extremely important in a wargame, or else you end up with a game that just nothing happens, or everything dies super fast (i.e. 8th ed).


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:21:12


Post by: harlokin


-Guardsman- wrote:
Holy crap! GW just made a change that makes the Dakkadakka community happy!


The Aircraft rules went down reasonably well too, not too much "mark my words, we're all doomed" in that thread either.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:23:04


Post by: Luke_Prowler


I'm certainly happy about this change. Overwatch was one of those feels bad rules where there was little way to handle it that didn't outstrip the cost of the unit you were trying to charge. There still seems to be ways to improve overwatch (like the terrain example), so if people want to discourge a charge they have to be putting a unit that would do good in overwatch rather than just "try and get me behind my 6 layers of Guardsmen".


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:27:09


Post by: Gadzilla666


 catbarf wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
That would result in a really weird play state where your main goal as a charger would be to charge two or more melee enemy units and keep them both alive (or more likely, charge one, keep it alive, and consolidate into the other), so that both of them can't fall back because of the limit of once per phase. This seems arguably as gimmicky or more gimmicky than wrapping. It would also result in really gimmicky ways of deploying units in long lines designed specifically to avoid two of your units being engaged. Games could come down to whether you can tag a single model of a second unit or not, not whether you can wrap a single model or not, and I'm not convinced that's any great improvement.


We currently have the utterly bizarre play state where your main goal as a charger is to charge one unit, but get close enough that you can Pile In to as many other units as possible, and through Consolidation try to trap at least one model from each squad. Honestly, what you describe feels to me like an upgrade- at the very least, it provides a hard counter to aura-hugging murderball gunlines.

It does. That's exactly what Night Lords do with "We Have Come For You", although I generally try to slaughter the first unit before consolidating into another.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:27:21


Post by: harlokin


I agree, I never found Overwatch devastating, but it was really frustrating when you failed your charge (and didn't move a fething inch) and yet still had to eat free shots.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:30:45


Post by: Grimgold


If they are going to get rid of wrapping, I hope they get rid of wrapping by simplifying the charge and consolidate rules, because they are so janky right now and filled with hidden complexity.

Also you guys want to hear a joke, to bad your going to anyway:

How is 9th ed like a piece of candy? To enjoy it you have to get rid of the wrapping.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:32:51


Post by: yukishiro1


 catbarf wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
That would result in a really weird play state where your main goal as a charger would be to charge two or more melee enemy units and keep them both alive (or more likely, charge one, keep it alive, and consolidate into the other), so that both of them can't fall back because of the limit of once per phase. This seems arguably as gimmicky or more gimmicky than wrapping. It would also result in really gimmicky ways of deploying units in long lines designed specifically to avoid two of your units being engaged. Games could come down to whether you can tag a single model of a second unit or not, not whether you can wrap a single model or not, and I'm not convinced that's any great improvement.


We currently have the utterly bizarre play state where your main goal as a charger is to charge one unit, but get close enough that you can Pile In to as many other units as possible, and through Consolidation try to trap at least one model from each squad. Honestly, what you describe feels to me like an upgrade- at the very least, it provides a hard counter to aura-hugging murderball gunlines.


I don't think it really is better conceptually. Not worse, but not better either.

The fundamental problem they have never come up with a solution for is that the way the game works, it is almost always better NOT to kill the unit you are engaged with in melee on your turn, in order to use it as a shield on their turn. This is the fundamental issue that causes all these problems. It should not be the case that your main objective playing a combat faction in 40k is NOT to wipe out your target with your charge.

What the game really needs is not a "cut them down" strat, but a rule that you can trigger at the end of your fight phase to make a unit that wiped an enemy unit that fight phase unable to be shot in your opponent's turn. You ought to be rewarded for wiping an enemy unit on the charge, not penalized for it.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:35:49


Post by: tneva82


Sterling191 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

T'au still get the linked overwatch. This makes the T'au Sept a lot less special so they might feel more inclined to move away from it.


There is zero point in playing Tau sept unless you want Shadownsun's double Kauyon now. Turning their sept ability into a once-per turn CP fuelled ability makes it instantly trash.


Unless some tau units get native ability. Or tau is going to be only army without native overwatch ability?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimgold wrote:
This and cut them down seem to be GW giving melee a soft landing after loosing three cornering.


They haven't lost it yet. And if 3 pointing goes away then that's way bigger nerf than this is buff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 harlokin wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Morale is something they've gotten wrong for basically the entirety of the game. I sincerely doubt it will end up mattering.


I hope not. People have a weird fetish for an unfun concept/mechanic.


Morale unfun? Guess being shot and hacked is unfun for you as well.

Morale is important part of warfare. Combats are won and lost due to morale. It's unfun that 40k just ignores it in effect.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:40:14


Post by: Daedalus81


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People keep mentioning "whatabout Centurions and Aggressors", but that's literally two units. Losing it about a rule because of two units PROBABLY means there's more going on to those two units. You know what would've helped? You can't reroll Overwatch shots. How elegant a solution.


Those are not the only units, but they exemplify the problem the best.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:48:15


Post by: Tyel


Big fan of the rule change.

Don't agree with those saying overwatch wasn't a problem for melee - its absolutist thinking. Yes, a lot of the time it wasn't. Then you had those games where your opponent was lucky and you were really unlucky, and you were left wanting to flip tables, as disproportionate numbers of troops died, or characters/monsters ate melta guns to the face.

And yes there were ways to get around this, bla bla bla - but often they were fiddly and still ultimately dice dependent.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:53:18


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People keep mentioning "whatabout Centurions and Aggressors", but that's literally two units. Losing it about a rule because of two units PROBABLY means there's more going on to those two units. You know what would've helped? You can't reroll Overwatch shots. How elegant a solution.


Those are not the only units, but they exemplify the problem the best.

Well go ahead and name the problem units then because that's all.i hear about or even care about to be frank.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:54:13


Post by: harlokin


tneva82 wrote:
Morale is important part of warfare.


So is disease, can't wait for the unbridled fun of the 'dysentery phase'


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:56:05


Post by: tneva82


Tyel wrote:
Big fan of the rule change.

Don't agree with those saying overwatch wasn't a problem for melee - its absolutist thinking. Yes, a lot of the time it wasn't. Then you had those games where your opponent was lucky and you were really unlucky, and you were left wanting to flip tables, as disproportionate numbers of troops died, or characters/monsters ate melta guns to the face.

And yes there were ways to get around this, bla bla bla - but often they were fiddly and still ultimately dice dependent.


Luck...If we look at luck we can say assault armies are screwed because sometimes tau firewarriors get lucky and wipe out your assault unit in melee. Or that shooting army is screwed because opponent gets lucky and passes every save.

Are we talking about luck and wishy washy or tactics?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 16:59:56


Post by: Gadzilla666


 harlokin wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Morale is important part of warfare.


So is disease, can't wait for the unbridled fun of the 'dysentery phase'

The Death Guard would like a word.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:00:25


Post by: yukishiro1


Most overwatch suppression is/ not based on dice. It is actually one of the least dice-based parts of the game. It's mostly warlord traits, stratagems, and terrain manipulation. Psychic powers are the only part that is really dependent on dice to any significant degree.

The charge roll itself is about 20x as likely to screw a combat army as overwatch if you're talking about the impact of dice.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:01:47


Post by: JNAProductions


It's a good change, but it doesn't address melee's core issues.

Still, positive change is positive, even if it's not exactly what I want.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:02:04


Post by: Stormonu


I play Tau, and I like this change, especially combined with the melee overwatch stratagem; the two should add some tactical strategy to the game and cut a bit down on time incessitantly fishing for 6's.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:04:04


Post by: yukishiro1


 JNAProductions wrote:
It's a good change, but it doesn't address melee's core issues.

Still, positive change is positive, even if it's not exactly what I want.


Agree, though I'd point out it's only good in a vaccuum. If it's combined with "and you can fall back even if you're wrapped, LOL" it isn't a good change at all for melee.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:05:09


Post by: JNAProductions


yukishiro1 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
It's a good change, but it doesn't address melee's core issues.

Still, positive change is positive, even if it's not exactly what I want.


Agree, though I'd point out it's only good in a vaccuum. If it's combined with "and you can fall back even if you're wrapped, LOL" it isn't a good change at all for melee.
No, it's still a good change.

If your hypothetical change happens, it's a net loss for melee, but that doesn't mean this isn't good on its own-just that OVERALL, melee lost.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:09:29


Post by: Tyel


yukishiro1 wrote:
Most overwatch suppression is/ not based on dice. It is actually one of the least dice-based parts of the game. It's mostly warlord traits, stratagems, and terrain manipulation. Psychic powers are the only part that is really dependent on dice to any significant degree.

The charge roll itself is about 20x as likely to screw a combat army as overwatch if you're talking about the impact of dice.


Unless you have something in mind, pretty much all the above options amount to "this unit is immune to overwatch".
So if they make a successful charge - which is based on dice - they get around it. Because your other units can follow them in.
But if they fail, and they will because of luck/statistics whatever you want to call the reality of dice, you are back eating overwatch.

Unless you can someone have your whole army charge from outside of LOS.

I'm not really sure how to discuss this without luck, because that's the nature of the game. Rolling 6s on key weapons - or getting a disproportionate number - is a function of luck. It obviously won't happen every game - and is no doubt counterbalanced by all the games across the world where people get disproportionately few. But in those games with the 6s overwatch can easily skew a game, and this seems undesirable on an ability which is essentially automatic and free.

A mechanic which does nothing most of the time but occasionally (and not that occasionally) has massive upside is a bad one. Its not the same as picking fringe cases of shooting/assault, where the outcome is far more often going to be normal.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:11:19


Post by: yukishiro1


And if you get a +1T on all your models but the opponent gets +2S on all his weapons, you could say "the +1T is still good for me!" But I don't think it really means much. You play with the entire rules package.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:12:46


Post by: PenitentJake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People keep mentioning "whatabout Centurions and Aggressors", but that's literally two units. Losing it about a rule because of two units PROBABLY means there's more going on to those two units. You know what would've helped? You can't reroll Overwatch shots. How elegant a solution.


Those are not the only units, but they exemplify the problem the best.


I never charged Centurions or Aggressors - I shot them instead, because strategy.

You're probably not one of the guys who frequently posts about how 8th offered no tactics and strategy- I have a nasty habit of attributing arguments to the wrong people. But this would be an example of one of those things that made me do a doubletake every time someone said there were no meaningful choices in the game. The thing about meaningful choices is you have to choose to make them, and anyone who ever charged centurions or aggressors was choosing not to make a meaningful choice.

About the OW changes in general, I'm ambivalent. It will really hurt some of my favourite units and sub-factions. At the same time, it will really help other units and factions I like. Sacred Rose, move over, Bloody Rose, let's make some more room for you. Our poor Banshees, who most on Dakka thought were useless anyway, are now really one of the worst units in the game.

The other thing that's a bit frustrating for me was that I always used Cityfight Terrain rules and enough LOS blocking terrain that in my games, melee never was at a disadvantage in the first place. While this change might have been necessary for people who weren't willing to solve their own problems, it wasn't really necessary for me. RIP Sacred Rose... There I go, solving my own problems again.

For GW's bottom line, this means they don't get to sell me Jain Zar and Banshees, because those are dedicated models, not just a painting choice.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:14:23


Post by: JNAProductions


PenitentJake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People keep mentioning "whatabout Centurions and Aggressors", but that's literally two units. Losing it about a rule because of two units PROBABLY means there's more going on to those two units. You know what would've helped? You can't reroll Overwatch shots. How elegant a solution.


Those are not the only units, but they exemplify the problem the best.


I never charged Centurions or Aggressors - I shot them instead, because strategy.

You're probably not one of the guys who frequently posts about how 8th offered no tactics and strategy- I have a nasty habit of attributing arguments to the wrong people. But this would be an example of one of those things that made me do a doubletake every time someone said there were no meaningful choices in the game. The thing about meaningful choices is you have to choose to make them, and anyone who ever charged centurions or aggressors was choosing not to make a meaningful choice.

About the OW changes in general, I'm ambivalent. It will really hurt some of my favourite units and sub-factions. At the same time, it will really help other units and factions I like. Sacred Rose, move over, Bloody Rose, let's make some more room for you. Our poor Banshees, who most on Dakka thought were useless anyway, are now really one of the worst units in the game.

The other thing that's a bit frustrating for me was that I always used Cityfight Terrain rules and enough LOS blocking terrain that in my games, melee never was at a disadvantage in the first place. While this change might have been necessary for people who weren't willing to solve their own problems, it wasn't really necessary for me. RIP Sacred Rose... There I go, solving my own problems again.

For GW's bottom line, this means they don't get to sell me Jain Zar and Banshees, because those are dedicated models, not just a painting choice.

How dare players want to have a game system that works as-written! The greedy bastards!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:14:28


Post by: Hankovitch


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People keep mentioning "whatabout Centurions and Aggressors", but that's literally two units. Losing it about a rule because of two units PROBABLY means there's more going on to those two units. You know what would've helped? You can't reroll Overwatch shots. How elegant a solution.


Those are not the only units, but they exemplify the problem the best.

Well go ahead and name the problem units then because that's all.i hear about or even care about to be frank.


An invictor warsuit will throw 6+2d6 shots plus d6 grenade shots that will get buffed by the blast rules.

A redemptor dread can throw 18 shots plus d6 grenade shots.

The ubiquitous 2cp Chapter Master Babysitter is a huge part of the problem, but at this point we may as well start calling Space Marines a horde army. Hordes o' dice.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:17:05


Post by: yukishiro1


Tyel wrote:


A mechanic which does nothing most of the time but occasionally (and not that occasionally) has massive upside is a bad one. Its not the same as picking fringe cases of shooting/assault, where the outcome is far more often going to be normal.


Well ok...but if you're looking at it that way, the overwatch change doesn't fix this substantially. They can still pay 1CP and 1/36 times your opponent's twin lascannon nails both hits. The one thing it does do is gives you more control over which unit gets overwatched, in that you can throw in some chaff first to eat the overwatch, and the overwatch is done whether that unit fails its charge roll or not.

But short of that, these changes just make overwatch even more swingy. The more dice you're rolling, the more likely the impact is to even out. By limiting it to once per phase, you actually increase the potential for skew, even at the same time you're lowering it's overall impact.

And we don't even know how many units are going to have built in "free overwatch" rules. If this was the ONLY way to overwatch, I'd be more likely to agree the change are significant. But the stream kinda makes it sound like a bunch of units are just going to be able to overwatch free anyway - and, knowing GW, it'll probably be units that are good at it.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:17:08


Post by: Daedalus81


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People keep mentioning "whatabout Centurions and Aggressors", but that's literally two units. Losing it about a rule because of two units PROBABLY means there's more going on to those two units. You know what would've helped? You can't reroll Overwatch shots. How elegant a solution.


Those are not the only units, but they exemplify the problem the best.

Well go ahead and name the problem units then because that's all.i hear about or even care about to be frank.


Err..T'au for one. I can push a garbage unit in their face. If they don't O/W and I make it then can't O/W. If they do then my more dangerous units are free to run in.

Any Iron Hands vehicle / dreadnought with their own damned T'au strat.

Anything with D2 that my Scarabs want to charge like Ravagers backfield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote:

You're probably not one of the guys who frequently posts about how 8th offered no tactics and strategy- I have a nasty habit of attributing arguments to the wrong people.


Your bad habit strikes again.

Almost no one charged Centurions, because it is suicide barring an overwatch blocking ability...and not even then was it wise (even pushing a T8 tank into them doesn't do well). I believe there are tactics available in this game. Charging Centurions was never a real choice. Now if I can get the proper units in position I have a no overwatch opportunity to exploit.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:41:11


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Hankovitch wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People keep mentioning "whatabout Centurions and Aggressors", but that's literally two units. Losing it about a rule because of two units PROBABLY means there's more going on to those two units. You know what would've helped? You can't reroll Overwatch shots. How elegant a solution.


Those are not the only units, but they exemplify the problem the best.

Well go ahead and name the problem units then because that's all.i hear about or even care about to be frank.


An invictor warsuit will throw 6+2d6 shots plus d6 grenade shots that will get buffed by the blast rules.

A redemptor dread can throw 18 shots plus d6 grenade shots.

The ubiquitous 2cp Chapter Master Babysitter is a huge part of the problem, but at this point we may as well start calling Space Marines a horde army. Hordes o' dice.

So therein lies the problem: rerolls.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:45:45


Post by: Spoletta


Spore mines can finally charge!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:52:18


Post by: xeen


I think this rule is great. I don't even think that because this makes melee armies better. I just love this rule for getting rid of all the junk overwatch shots, like someone said earlier, a bunch of st4 v. a knight, or even the single commander who gets charged, or the small remnants of squads late game firing meaningless shots. This rule eliminates a bunch of meaningless actions, and I think it is great.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 17:57:55


Post by: Daedalus81


 xeen wrote:
I think this rule is great. I don't even think that because this makes melee armies better. I just love this rule for getting rid of all the junk overwatch shots, like someone said earlier, a bunch of st4 v. a knight, or even the single commander who gets charged, or the small remnants of squads late game firing meaningless shots. This rule eliminates a bunch of meaningless actions, and I think it is great.


It also puts a CP drain on marines who have a lot more high quality shots and rerolls.

The game is getting a really good shake up.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:13:16


Post by: Nurglitch


Seems like more strategic overwatch. Good.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:17:00


Post by: Arachnofiend


Surprised not to see any talk about the other big thing in this article, the ability to counter-charge out of reserves. Finally slow bulky melee units in primary shooting armies have a genuine purpose.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:24:49


Post by: Daedalus81


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Surprised not to see any talk about the other big thing in this article, the ability to counter-charge out of reserves. Finally slow bulky melee units in primary shooting armies have a genuine purpose.


Only from your own zone. Pretty rare, but nice to have.

Now I'm most curious about Fallback and Morale. As Scotsman noted with Aircraft fallback not an issue can Fallback go to CP? If Fallback goes to CP then protracted combats and morale and GW's mention of attrition makes a whole lot more sense...



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:25:33


Post by: AndrewC


And nobody has mentioned or noted that Look out Sir is back as a rule?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:27:43


Post by: Daedalus81


 AndrewC wrote:
And nobody has mentioned or noted that Look out Sir is back as a rule?


I was trying to remember if someone got a bespoke 'Look Out, Sir' rule. It would be nice to have back with the proliferation of snipers.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:37:42


Post by: Tyel


People seem to be getting excited - but I think Look out Sir is just going to be "the character targeting rules".

Admittedly things could change with that - but I wouldn't bet on it too much.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:41:58


Post by: the_scotsman


 AndrewC wrote:
And nobody has mentioned or noted that Look out Sir is back as a rule?


I believe that's already the name of what we consider "Character Protection."


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:45:03


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Surprised not to see any talk about the other big thing in this article, the ability to counter-charge out of reserves. Finally slow bulky melee units in primary shooting armies have a genuine purpose.


Only from your own zone. Pretty rare, but nice to have.

Now I'm most curious about Fallback and Morale. As Scotsman noted with Aircraft fallback not an issue can Fallback go to CP? If Fallback goes to CP then protracted combats and morale and GW's mention of attrition makes a whole lot more sense...


As would their mention of the new morale mechanics helping Night Lords. Because even if a new fallback strategem would allow you to fallback through enemy models, well, We Have Come For You......


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:45:34


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Surprised not to see any talk about the other big thing in this article, the ability to counter-charge out of reserves. Finally slow bulky melee units in primary shooting armies have a genuine purpose.


Only from your own zone. Pretty rare, but nice to have.

Now I'm most curious about Fallback and Morale. As Scotsman noted with Aircraft fallback not an issue can Fallback go to CP? If Fallback goes to CP then protracted combats and morale and GW's mention of attrition makes a whole lot more sense...



...As does many of the price increases for cheap chaff units, which would be MUCH more effective in preventing non-vehicle non-monster units from making use of their guns.

I'd like to add Transports to what I'm curious about as well. IMO, disembarkation after movement (with no ability to move the unit afterwards) should be a standard rule for transports, and would bring back proper mechanized armies in a big way and add even more reason to maneuver, particularly if you're much more concerned about getting tied up as a static gunline.

8th ed, with better terrain rules, better transport rules, no time-consuming overwatch, smaller armies, better missions and fewer CP wombo-combos? Seems pretty good to me...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Surprised not to see any talk about the other big thing in this article, the ability to counter-charge out of reserves. Finally slow bulky melee units in primary shooting armies have a genuine purpose.


Only from your own zone. Pretty rare, but nice to have.

Now I'm most curious about Fallback and Morale. As Scotsman noted with Aircraft fallback not an issue can Fallback go to CP? If Fallback goes to CP then protracted combats and morale and GW's mention of attrition makes a whole lot more sense...


As would their mention of the new morale mechanics helping Night Lords. Because even if a new fallback strategem would allow you to fallback through enemy models, well, We Have Come For You......


I just hope the +1/-1 cap also doesnt apply to LD. Death Jesters would be looking pretttttty silly!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:46:41


Post by: Seabass


This change to overwatch is really good in my opinion. Overwatch was so oppressive vs Tau and Ironhands, to name a few, that it was often better to not assault them to deny them getting a second shooting phase and just bubble wrap the objectives to hold on to points for as long as you can. If they split up, or put a few things out of position, then you could play the melee game with them, but if they were castled up, as was often the case, the only thing you could really do is assault with something that denies overwatch, or just sit there and eat firepower turn after turn because assaulting them was out of the question.

This also slows down and prevents the "burn them all" cp plays on turn one. Players will, I would imagine, want to spend some CP, and then save several for later on in the game to allow them some command rerolls and some overwatch for later.

I'm excited about this change. I play Tyranids, Blood Angels, Ad mech, Space Wolves, Demons, Chaos and Chaos knights, and when I read that update I tried to position myself mentally to try to look at this objectively, to see if I could see reasons that poke holes in this, but I really couldn't find any, (though I admit, I tend to favor melee armies in general).

I don't want to dance on the graves of the Tau and ironhands players out there (or those Baneblades with defensive gunners) but I think, if anything, this change may push people to try new things and see what they like. Just the changes to Tau sept alone may mean that FTGG isn't the end all be all of Tau armies anymore, and maybe other or custom septs will be chosen?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:48:47


Post by: AndrewC


the_scotsman wrote:
 AndrewC wrote:
And nobody has mentioned or noted that Look out Sir is back as a rule?


I believe that's already the name of what we consider "Character Protection."


Nope, it used to be, but a rule by that name has never existed in 8th. Which means that the rule is being reintroduced in 9th, under some unknown form.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 18:58:18


Post by: Krylon


Would have it be better / simpler if overwatch rules was revamped as roll 2d6 and then overwatch
if charge successful=
.charge roll is under 6-7 -> no overwatch - not enough time for charged unit to react
.charge roll is 6-7 or more -> overwatch - enough reacting time

noob guess / interrogation ?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 19:04:14


Post by: Karol


never had an opponent unit charge something my with enough shots charge, unless they could ingore overwatch. for 5 man squads it was mostly irrelevant, if free rules. small nerf, but hardly worth the worry for me.

It does make IH seem strange though. If they can use their chapter tactic only on 1 unit and only 1 CP, it gets a lot worse.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 19:04:19


Post by: the_scotsman


Krylon wrote:
Would have it be better / simpler if overwatch rules was revamped as roll 2d6 and then overwatch
if charge successful=
.charge roll is under 6-7 -> no overwatch - not enough time for charged unit to react
.charge roll is 6-7 or more -> overwatch - enough reacting time

noob guess / interrogation ?


No. Granting free power to a unit outside their normal turn structure just for their opponent having charged without expending any resource was just silly, and worse silly and time consuming as you had to roll dice for every single one of your guns.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 19:04:47


Post by: Togusa


retracted


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 19:07:46


Post by: the_scotsman


Karol wrote:
never had an opponent unit charge something my with enough shots charge, unless they could ingore overwatch. for 5 man squads it was mostly irrelevant, if free rules. small nerf, but hardly worth the worry for me.

It does make IH seem strange though. If they can use their chapter tactic only on 1 unit and only 1 CP, it gets a lot worse.


I mean, until you realize that they have another half of their chapter tactic...the 6+ FNP, which several other factions have as their chapter tactic but WITHOUT the bonus overwatch thing.

...and also don't get doctrines

...or superdoctrines

...or their own psychic powers

...or 6 relics 6 strats etc etc etc etc.

I think the Iron Hands will be FINE compared to other factions' abilities.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 19:11:03


Post by: Daedalus81


 Togusa wrote:
Wow this is dumb. Overwatch is now CP locked and limited.


Found the T'au player!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 19:19:58


Post by: Karol


the_scotsman wrote:
Karol wrote:
never had an opponent unit charge something my with enough shots charge, unless they could ingore overwatch. for 5 man squads it was mostly irrelevant, if free rules. small nerf, but hardly worth the worry for me.

It does make IH seem strange though. If they can use their chapter tactic only on 1 unit and only 1 CP, it gets a lot worse.


I mean, until you realize that they have another half of their chapter tactic...the 6+ FNP, which several other factions have as their chapter tactic but WITHOUT the bonus overwatch thing.

...and also don't get doctrines

...or superdoctrines

...or their own psychic powers

...or 6 relics 6 strats etc etc etc etc.

I think the Iron Hands will be FINE compared to other factions' abilities.


But it doesn't make them the best. Specialy in a low CP enviroment. Who cares if about weaker armies when they picked IH to be the best. That is like telling an Inari player that he shouldn't worry, because lets say DA are in much worse situation, if he just takes his models and plays them as plain alaitoc elder.
No one should compare themselfs to those are the lower then them, it makes no sense and hinders growth.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 19:37:43


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Karol wrote:
never had an opponent unit charge something my with enough shots charge, unless they could ingore overwatch. for 5 man squads it was mostly irrelevant, if free rules. small nerf, but hardly worth the worry for me.

It does make IH seem strange though. If they can use their chapter tactic only on 1 unit and only 1 CP, it gets a lot worse.


I mean, until you realize that they have another half of their chapter tactic...the 6+ FNP, which several other factions have as their chapter tactic but WITHOUT the bonus overwatch thing.

...and also don't get doctrines

...or superdoctrines

...or their own psychic powers

...or 6 relics 6 strats etc etc etc etc.

I think the Iron Hands will be FINE compared to other factions' abilities.


But it doesn't make them the best. Specialy in a low CP enviroment. Who cares if about weaker armies when they picked IH to be the best. That is like telling an Inari player that he shouldn't worry, because lets say DA are in much worse situation, if he just takes his models and plays them as plain alaitoc elder.
No one should compare themselfs to those are the lower then them, it makes no sense and hinders growth.


I'm struggling to understand the point you're trying to make here. IH were top dog. This takes a bit of steam out of them, but they still have plenty of advantages.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 19:44:10


Post by: harlokin


 Togusa wrote:
Wow this is dumb. Overwatch is now CP locked and limited.


You gain one CP in your Command Phase.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 19:46:59


Post by: Togusa


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
Wow this is dumb. Overwatch is now CP locked and limited.


Found the T'au player!


Lol! I actually did used to play T'au. I rethought though, this isn't that bad.

Speaking of the T'au, I bet they'll be the exception.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 20:02:03


Post by: yukishiro1


For all we know, factions with good overwatch may just get "all your units can overwatch every turn for free" as a rule. So it may not do that much to shut down the oppressive overwatch factions at all.

I'd be so much more up on this change without that "oh but don't worry there are other ways to overwatch too" thing they threw in.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 20:07:29


Post by: Seabass


yukishiro1 wrote:
For all we know, factions with good overwatch may just get "all your units can overwatch every turn for free" as a rule. So it may not do that much to shut down the oppressive overwatch factions at all.

I'd be so much more up on this change without that "oh but don't worry there are other ways to overwatch too" thing they threw in.


If I were a betting man, I would bet that it will be pushed as an ability granted by a character, which I think would be a cool ability. Though that may change how the spets work. On the whole, though, I don't think that would be such a bad thing.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 20:15:20


Post by: Arachnofiend


My guess would be that Greater Good becomes "whenever a unit declares overwatch, an additional unit may declare overwatch". Getting free overwatch for everyone would be grossly overbearing in the new paradigm.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 20:15:38


Post by: Luke_Prowler


We do know Ultramarines will be getting a strat to allow them to overwatch. And It would not susprise me if Guard get an order for it, and similar abilities for Tau.

I certainly don't want them to remove overwatch completely, my friend play Mordians and I wouldn't want to see him sad. But the problem with overwatch has always been that there's no cost associated with performing overwatch


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 20:25:30


Post by: Seabass


 Arachnofiend wrote:
My guess would be that Greater Good becomes "whenever a unit declares overwatch, an additional unit may declare overwatch". Getting free overwatch for everyone would be grossly overbearing in the new paradigm.


OOOH, that's a good point, I didn't think of that.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 20:59:18


Post by: BlaxicanX


My big fear is that they're going to make a faction tactic that just allows every unit with the <faction> keyword to be able to overwatch, and I feel like it's basically an inevitability.

Like would anyone really be surprised if three years from now the iron hands chapter tactic is just "6++ on everything and "cool headed" on everything"?

Or Imperial fists, for that matter.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 21:43:33


Post by: Kroem


Yea well for today overwatch is fixed and we can all celebrate, if GW do something in the future to ruin it again we can complain then!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 21:58:07


Post by: Stormonu


Seabass wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
My guess would be that Greater Good becomes "whenever a unit declares overwatch, an additional unit may declare overwatch". Getting free overwatch for everyone would be grossly overbearing in the new paradigm.


OOOH, that's a good point, I didn't think of that.


On top of that at some point GW will likely add a stratagem that lets you Overwatch with two or three squads (at an increased CP cost if they're intelligent), each against a different charger.

Not sure what they will do for Tau sept (or other units) whose Overwatch hits on a 5+, though it may be a case of "they get it all the time" not just in defended terrain.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:01:50


Post by: Vilehydra


One thing to keep in mind is that there are strategems and litanies that would allow additional overwatch attacks. Born protectors from Salamanders comes to mind. What other strategems exist out there that allow another overwatch sequence? They'll be important to keep track of.

Also, unwieldy weapons are now terrifying on defensive units. That intercessor TH sgt is now hitting on 3's again while in defensible terrain. That's pretty nasty


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:12:37


Post by: H.B.M.C.


It's interesting to see that part of what motivated them to change Overwatch was the way it was a lot of dice rolling for not a lot of effect. As someone put it earlier, the way you would "fish for sixes". I would hope that GW realises that the very same thing applies to the general To Wound chart, given that everything can wound everything on a 6, and thus you can always fish for sixes.

It'd be nice if they made it so certain weapons cannot hurt tougher targets to remove this pointless dice rolling as well.

 AndrewC wrote:
And nobody has mentioned or noted that Look out Sir is back as a rule?
That's the part I saw. Very worrisome.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:21:49


Post by: Ice_can


Vilehydra wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that there are strategems and litanies that would allow additional overwatch attacks. Born protectors from Salamanders comes to mind. What other strategems exist out there that allow another overwatch sequence? They'll be important to keep track of.

Also, unwieldy weapons are now terrifying on defensive units. That intercessor TH sgt is now hitting on 3's again while in defensible terrain. That's pretty nasty

Ultramarines can over watch with 3 units IRCC via a strategum.
Knights have strategums to overwatch for others

Well so far the pendulum is swinging lets see if GW can keep it sensible or if we'll be back to turn 1 auto charges with you can't fall back rules being the default way to win by going first.

Also GW saying they will be updating rules that alter overwatch, literally Tau septs full faction bonus.
However what they aren't going to say is that fixing these subfactions that are now without a trait will be done in their 9th edition codex


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:26:51


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's interesting to see that part of what motivated them to change Overwatch was the way it was a lot of dice rolling for not a lot of effect. As someone put it earlier, the way you would "fish for sixes". I would hope that GW realises that the very same thing applies to the general To Wound chart, given that everything can wound everything on a 6, and thus you can always fish for sixes.

It'd be nice if they made it so certain weapons cannot hurt tougher targets to remove this pointless dice rolling as well.

 AndrewC wrote:
And nobody has mentioned or noted that Look out Sir is back as a rule?
That's the part I saw. Very worrisome.



Why worrisome?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:35:55


Post by: alextroy


the_scotsman wrote:
Karol wrote:
never had an opponent unit charge something my with enough shots charge, unless they could ingore overwatch. for 5 man squads it was mostly irrelevant, if free rules. small nerf, but hardly worth the worry for me.

It does make IH seem strange though. If they can use their chapter tactic only on 1 unit and only 1 CP, it gets a lot worse.


I mean, until you realize that they have another half of their chapter tactic...the 6+ FNP, which several other factions have as their chapter tactic but WITHOUT the bonus overwatch thing.
I concur. Suddenly the 3-part Iron Hands Chapter Tactic and the 3-part Sacred Rose Order Conviction make more sense when you only get to overwatch once per phase with CP expenditure.

Luke_Prowler wrote:We do know Ultramarines will be getting a strat to allow them to overwatch. And It would not susprise me if Guard get an order for it, and similar abilities for Tau.

I certainly don't want them to remove overwatch completely, my friend play Mordians and I wouldn't want to see him sad. But the problem with overwatch has always been that there's no cost associated with performing overwatch
The Ultramarines have a stratagem that allows unto 3 units to overwatch when a unit is charged. Makes much more sense when Overwatch requires CP to use of all units.

It's almost like all the Space Marines and Adepta Sororitas rules were made with 9th Edition in mind...


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:37:00


Post by: Argive


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's interesting to see that part of what motivated them to change Overwatch was the way it was a lot of dice rolling for not a lot of effect. As someone put it earlier, the way you would "fish for sixes". I would hope that GW realises that the very same thing applies to the general To Wound chart, given that everything can wound everything on a 6, and thus you can always fish for sixes.

It'd be nice if they made it so certain weapons cannot hurt tougher targets to remove this pointless dice rolling as well.

 AndrewC wrote:
And nobody has mentioned or noted that Look out Sir is back as a rule?
That's the part I saw. Very worrisome.



Why worrisome?


Yeah wont it be the same thing as it is now i..e Character keyword?

I think also they are going back to codified USRs.hopefuly means less need for FAQs.


Seems to be the case with a lot of things they mentioned like "shocked"


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:37:56


Post by: Unusual Suspect


Ice_can wrote:


Also GW saying they will be updating rules that alter overwatch, literally Tau septs full faction bonus.
However what they aren't going to say is that fixing these subfactions that are now without a trait will be done in their 9th edition codex


Where has GW said this? I don't see it on the Overwatch article.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:38:52


Post by: Arachnofiend


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's interesting to see that part of what motivated them to change Overwatch was the way it was a lot of dice rolling for not a lot of effect. As someone put it earlier, the way you would "fish for sixes". I would hope that GW realises that the very same thing applies to the general To Wound chart, given that everything can wound everything on a 6, and thus you can always fish for sixes.

It'd be nice if they made it so certain weapons cannot hurt tougher targets to remove this pointless dice rolling as well.

"If toughness is more than twice the weapon's strength it cannot wound at all" would resolve this without upending the simplicity of the wound chart (something I personally think is worth preserving). Could even make it "wound on a 7+" if GW is interested in preserving specific synergies for punching up the wound chart.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:40:58


Post by: yukishiro1


Stuff not being able to hurt other stuff is bad game design. One of the better things they have done in recent editions is made 6s always wound, and in 9th, 6s will also always hit. It would be very strange indeed to flip it around in 9th so 6s always hit but don't always wound.

8th edition suffers hugely from rolling too many dice, but "fishing for 6s" is such a tiny part of that equation. Rerolls and ridiculous rate of fire are the main culprits.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:45:29


Post by: Daedalus81


 alextroy wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Karol wrote:
never had an opponent unit charge something my with enough shots charge, unless they could ingore overwatch. for 5 man squads it was mostly irrelevant, if free rules. small nerf, but hardly worth the worry for me.

It does make IH seem strange though. If they can use their chapter tactic only on 1 unit and only 1 CP, it gets a lot worse.


I mean, until you realize that they have another half of their chapter tactic...the 6+ FNP, which several other factions have as their chapter tactic but WITHOUT the bonus overwatch thing.
I concur. Suddenly the 3-part Iron Hands Chapter Tactic and the 3-part Sacred Rose Order Conviction make more sense when you only get to overwatch once per phase with CP expenditure.

Luke_Prowler wrote:We do know Ultramarines will be getting a strat to allow them to overwatch. And It would not susprise me if Guard get an order for it, and similar abilities for Tau.

I certainly don't want them to remove overwatch completely, my friend play Mordians and I wouldn't want to see him sad. But the problem with overwatch has always been that there's no cost associated with performing overwatch
The Ultramarines have a stratagem that allows unto 3 units to overwatch when a unit is charged. Makes much more sense when Overwatch requires CP to use of all units.

It's almost like all the Space Marines and Adepta Sororitas rules were made with 9th Edition in mind...


Yep - GW has been planning this this update for a while. The design for the launch box started 3 years ago even. I can't imagine them juggling the codexes, FAQs, errata, and this simultaneously so the screws up make a bit more sense.

But the question is now....can GW ever get ahead of the curve?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:45:39


Post by: Castozor


It is not bad game design though. Why exactly should my tanks fear bolters plinking of the last 2 wounds they have? I will admit this is my first edition of 40k but I never had a problem with certain units not being able to wound my super tough units in other games.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:47:13


Post by: JNAProductions


 Castozor wrote:
It is not bad game design though. Why exactly should my tanks fear bolters plinking of the last 2 wounds they have? I will admit this is my first edition of 40k but I never had a problem with certain units not being able to wound my super tough units in other games.
The fact that I can have an entirely T8 army. (T9, with Chaos Knigts, at the cost of d3 mortals a turn.)

So once I silence your anti-tank weapons, I'm effectively immune to you.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 22:52:01


Post by: Salted Diamond


While I can certainly appreciate and understand the why people are happy with this change, I'm mostly bummed since I play Mordians. So unless IG gets something like an order to allow more units to overwatch, my doctrine just became mostly useless. Even more so if the max +1/-1 I've seen mentioned effects Ld as well.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 23:04:12


Post by: Vaktathi


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
It is not bad game design though. Why exactly should my tanks fear bolters plinking of the last 2 wounds they have? I will admit this is my first edition of 40k but I never had a problem with certain units not being able to wound my super tough units in other games.
The fact that I can have an entirely T8 army. (T9, with Chaos Knigts, at the cost of d3 mortals a turn.)

So once I silence your anti-tank weapons, I'm effectively immune to you.
This was the case in previous editions for vehicles and big monsters, and never really was a problem in and of itself. Massed AV14 never did particularly well in any edition for instance. Breaking through saves (smoke/jink/ion shield/armor on MC's/etc) was generally the greater issue by far than simply having enough high-S weapons to hurt something big.

While the current system doesn't bother me enough to really agitate about changing it, the idea of having heavy battle tanks that aren't having to deal with A: gobs of ineffective dice slowing the game down being thrown at them hoping for lucky 6's, or B: small arms equipped units boot-strapping multiple overlapping buffs and special rules to become more capable AT units than many actual dedicated AT units (looking at you Intercessors...), is also appealing.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 23:07:30


Post by: Castozor


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
It is not bad game design though. Why exactly should my tanks fear bolters plinking of the last 2 wounds they have? I will admit this is my first edition of 40k but I never had a problem with certain units not being able to wound my super tough units in other games.
The fact that I can have an entirely T8 army. (T9, with Chaos Knigts, at the cost of d3 mortals a turn.)

So once I silence your anti-tank weapons, I'm effectively immune to you.

Allowing pure heavy armies was a mistake to begin with in my opinion. I realize these are in the game now, but they were a mistake to begin with. Fully armored companies and worse do not belong in a skirmish game.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/17 23:10:42


Post by: yukishiro1


 Castozor wrote:
It is not bad game design though. Why exactly should my tanks fear bolters plinking of the last 2 wounds they have? I will admit this is my first edition of 40k but I never had a problem with certain units not being able to wound my super tough units in other games.


Because invincible units are bad game design, and anything that encourages people to bring skew lists is also bad game design. You should never show up to a game and find that most of your opponents' units are completely immune to most of your units, as in literally cannot be harmed.

If your opponent is shooting dozens of bolter shots at a tank in the hopes of plinking off a unit or two, be happy, because it means you are winning the game by forcing them to shoot at a hugely sub-optimal target. Be happy that only 1 in 20 shots is getting through, not upset about the 1 in 20 that does.

Honestly, the much bigger problem with plinking wounds off tanks isn't the roll to wound, it's the armor saves. This is another case of "Primaris Marines wreck everything," because S4, AP:- is vastly different than S4, AP2.

A 3+ armor save barely means anything any more when space marines come with stock AP-2 on T2 and T3 if they want it.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 00:05:45


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Why worrisome?
Two words: Character sniping.

My hope is that "Look Out, Sir!" is a strat that allows protection against Snipers. If it's a general rule that make characters harder to target, that means characters can be targeted, which means death for a lot of character units (who's going to bring the otherwise useless Malanthrope if it can be shot from the word go?), and it also takes away the point of actual sniper units.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
"If toughness is more than twice the weapon's strength it cannot wound at all" would resolve this without upending the simplicity of the wound chart (something I personally think is worth preserving). Could even make it "wound on a 7+" if GW is interested in preserving specific synergies for punching up the wound chart.
The double toughness thing would go part of the way to resolving the issue, but not far enough. As long as S5 can wound T8/9 on 5+, the problem doesn't go away.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Stuff not being able to hurt other stuff is bad game design.
Why? Laspistols shouldn't even have the opportunity to hurt Land Raiders and Knights.

The issue with the current To Wound rules is that it makes multi-shot mid-damage S5/S6 weapons the best at taking out tanks, certainly more than super-swingy actual anti-tank weapons. If there were delineations to what counted as anti-infantry and anti-tank then it wouldn't be a problem.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 00:12:30


Post by: dhallnet


yukishiro1 wrote:
Stuff not being able to hurt other stuff is bad game design. One of the better things they have done in recent editions is made 6s always wound, and in 9th, 6s will also always hit. It would be very strange indeed to flip it around in 9th so 6s always hit but don't always wound.

8th edition suffers hugely from rolling too many dice, but "fishing for 6s" is such a tiny part of that equation. Rerolls and ridiculous rate of fire are the main culprits.

No, it's not.
With how the game is set up, the "new" wounding chart is actually an issue. Everything being able to hit and wound everything is quite bad. It is the basis of what promotes quantity over quality, as it covers every bases you'll need in your army and tends to promote medium size weapons (anti light vehicles, heavy infantry) which in turns either reduce the usability of their favoured targets or force designers to buff them out of proportion (I'm pretty sure everyone one has obvious examples in mind). It also promotes wound inflation in profiles as toughness isn't as good as it should.

I don't know why it feels normal to have troops with knifes be able to blow up a predator just because they have numbers.
If you design a game with such a scale that you have nurglings facing titans, it's perfectly fine for something to not be able to wound something else. It actually already exists with hand to hand units without fly and aircrafts for example. I dunno why it can't be a thing for vehicles or tough monsters versus F4 or lower for example.
If someone has to face off against an army it can't scratch, it's kinda his own issue. If someone had no option to deal with aircrafts at the moment, I don't think we would be saying "OMG, the rules needs to be changed !!!" rather than "it's ok mate, get some ranged weapons next time".


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 00:35:20


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Two words: Character sniping.

My hope is that "Look Out, Sir!" is a strat that allows protection against Snipers. If it's a general rule that make characters harder to target, that means characters can be targeted, which means death for a lot of character units (who's going to bring the otherwise useless Malanthrope if it can be shot from the word go?), and it also takes away the point of actual sniper units.


Oh, right. My mental process went to the current character targeting along with Look Out, Sir. Sniper units are way more lethal now and plenty of armies lack bodyguards.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 00:37:51


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Two words: Character sniping.

My hope is that "Look Out, Sir!" is a strat that allows protection against Snipers. If it's a general rule that make characters harder to target, that means characters can be targeted, which means death for a lot of character units (who's going to bring the otherwise useless Malanthrope if it can be shot from the word go?), and it also takes away the point of actual sniper units.


Oh, right. My mental process went to the current character targeting along with Look Out, Sir. Sniper units are way more lethal now and plenty of armies lack bodyguards.

Plenty of armies lack snipers as well.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 00:43:58


Post by: Wakshaani


Well, let's look at the sample snippet we have:

"Any rule that states that the unit cannot be targeted unless it is the closest target (e.g. Look Out, Sir) does not apply when firing Overwatch."

From this we can extrapolate that the new character rule is Look Out, Sir and that, at least in part, it reads "This model cannot be targeted unless it is the closest model." or words to that effect.

There may be a targeting restriction (IE, can shoot this model if another is closer but can't be targeted, such as one behind a wall 3" away vs a character 14" away), and there may some cases where it isn't in effect (IE, a model with 10+ wounds) but, overall, this looks to be the general character rule.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 01:27:16


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Two words: Character sniping.

My hope is that "Look Out, Sir!" is a strat that allows protection against Snipers. If it's a general rule that make characters harder to target, that means characters can be targeted, which means death for a lot of character units (who's going to bring the otherwise useless Malanthrope if it can be shot from the word go?), and it also takes away the point of actual sniper units.


Oh, right. My mental process went to the current character targeting along with Look Out, Sir. Sniper units are way more lethal now and plenty of armies lack bodyguards.

Plenty of armies lack snipers as well.

Snipers being a threat to characters wouldn't be as much of a problem if everyone's snipers were a threat to characters. Deathmarks and many of the other older snipers are useless and as you said some armies straight up don't have access to a sniper unit.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 01:33:19


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Oh, right. My mental process went to the current character targeting along with Look Out, Sir. Sniper units are way more lethal now and plenty of armies lack bodyguards.
I'm fine with their being a rule to counter snipers. Snipers should be dangerous, and having to expend a strategic resource to protect against them seems fair.

I do not want all characters to be targetable at all times, which is why the "Look Out, Sir!" thing has me worried. It would be a massive shift in power, and utterly invalidate certain units (Guard officers might as well not show up).

Of course, in the case of Guard Officers, if they were actually part of their command squads, which they used to be, which was the entire point of Command Squads and why they were introduced in second edition (and lasted 6 whole editions!), then that'd be less of a problem for them. But that's a separate issue.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 01:33:29


Post by: Argive


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
It is not bad game design though. Why exactly should my tanks fear bolters plinking of the last 2 wounds they have? I will admit this is my first edition of 40k but I never had a problem with certain units not being able to wound my super tough units in other games.
The fact that I can have an entirely T8 army. (T9, with Chaos Knigts, at the cost of d3 mortals a turn.)

So once I silence your anti-tank weapons, I'm effectively immune to you.


Except now you wont be able to see any of the AT shooting at you let alone holding/taking actions on objectives to score VP.

The old wound chart makes much more sense than fishing for 6's... re-rolling 1's.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 01:42:20


Post by: Amishprn86


 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Two words: Character sniping.

My hope is that "Look Out, Sir!" is a strat that allows protection against Snipers. If it's a general rule that make characters harder to target, that means characters can be targeted, which means death for a lot of character units (who's going to bring the otherwise useless Malanthrope if it can be shot from the word go?), and it also takes away the point of actual sniper units.


Oh, right. My mental process went to the current character targeting along with Look Out, Sir. Sniper units are way more lethal now and plenty of armies lack bodyguards.

Plenty of armies lack snipers as well.

Snipers being a threat to characters wouldn't be as much of a problem if everyone's snipers were a threat to characters. Deathmarks and many of the other older snipers are useless and as you said some armies straight up don't have access to a sniper unit.


The problem is Imperial has a good assassin sniper, i think that is what they really are concerned about.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 02:20:37


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


dhallnet wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Stuff not being able to hurt other stuff is bad game design. One of the better things they have done in recent editions is made 6s always wound, and in 9th, 6s will also always hit. It would be very strange indeed to flip it around in 9th so 6s always hit but don't always wound.

8th edition suffers hugely from rolling too many dice, but "fishing for 6s" is such a tiny part of that equation. Rerolls and ridiculous rate of fire are the main culprits.

No, it's not.
With how the game is set up, the "new" wounding chart is actually an issue. Everything being able to hit and wound everything is quite bad. It is the basis of what promotes quantity over quality, as it covers every bases you'll need in your army and tends to promote medium size weapons (anti light vehicles, heavy infantry) which in turns either reduce the usability of their favoured targets or force designers to buff them out of proportion (I'm pretty sure everyone one has obvious examples in mind). It also promotes wound inflation in profiles as toughness isn't as good as it should.

I don't know why it feels normal to have troops with knifes be able to blow up a predator just because they have numbers.
If you design a game with such a scale that you have nurglings facing titans, it's perfectly fine for something to not be able to wound something else. It actually already exists with hand to hand units without fly and aircrafts for example. I dunno why it can't be a thing for vehicles or tough monsters versus F4 or lower for example.
If someone has to face off against an army it can't scratch, it's kinda his own issue. If someone had no option to deal with aircrafts at the moment, I don't think we would be saying "OMG, the rules needs to be changed !!!" rather than "it's ok mate, get some ranged weapons next time".

The new wounding chart is an issue because GW is still sticking with a D6 system.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 02:48:40


Post by: yukishiro1


Troops with knives destroying a tank isn't that far-fetched. Obviously they're not going to be chopping the tank up with their knives, but you can think of it as infantry swarming the tank and disabling its treads, ripping stuff off it, or prying a cover open and getting into the tank to kill the people inside it.

Nor is it particularly far-fetched that a lot of laser guns or exploding slugs can damage and ultimately disable a tank with enough shots. Every weapon in 40k is much more deadly than the weapons we have today.

I honestly don't get the "realism" argument here at all. It just seems objectively wrong.

The gameplay argument doesn't convince me at all either. I don't see any good that comes from making heavy units completely immune to weaker weapons. The reason people gravitate towards mid-S weaponry is because it's the most efficient against a wide range of targets - isn't that exactly as it should be? At the very most, it's an argument that things like lascannons are overcosted - in which case, just bring down their points?



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 02:49:54


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Same issue that they described with overwatch: If you're just rolling dice fishing for 6's because you can, then it's wasting time in the game. A bunch of Slugga boyz firing at Knight 'cause they've got nothing else to do shouldn't be a thing.

Plus it's not a "realism" argument, it's just something that doesn't work on a conceptual level. Infantry don't unload their weapons into enemy armour in the hope they'll get lucky. They take cover and call in anti-tank assets.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 02:49:58


Post by: catbarf


It takes 99 S4 hits on average to kill a Predator, or 216 S4 hits to kill a Leman Russ. How many of the people complaining about this remote possibility have actually done so in-game?

The complaint is based on the sheer possibility that a low-strength attack could hurt a tank, so switching to a D10 wouldn't fix anything- people would still complain that theoretically enough lasguns could roll 10s or whatever to kill a Predator from full health.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 02:52:24


Post by: JNAProductions


I mean, in theory, 8 Goff Choppa Boys who advanced can kill an Iron Hands Land Raider from full to dead in one turn.

Sure, the odds are about .00000000000000000000000000000000000024%, but hey!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 03:07:10


Post by: yukishiro1


Using your shooting or melee phase to make attacks isn't really "fishing for 6s" and it isn't something that should be discouraged, no matter how unlikely the chance of success. The argument here seems to be: they should just roll over and die to save time. I don't think that's fun gameplay.

If each model making their shooting and/or melee attack is slowing down the game too much, that's because the volume of dice is too high to begin with. Saying "the game takes too long because too many weak units are trying to hurt strong ones when really they shouldn't even be able to hurt them at all" seems really silly to me.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 03:17:51


Post by: Vaktathi


 catbarf wrote:
It takes 99 S4 hits on average to kill a Predator, or 216 S4 hits to kill a Leman Russ. How many of the people complaining about this remote possibility have actually done so in-game?
The problem becomes when those bolters get to reroll hits and wounds and are sporting AP-2, and all of a sudden a basic Troops unit is putting out more hurt on a tank than a Quadlas Predator is.

Alternatively, when people insist on rolling their mass-o-infantry dice in the hope of maybe plinking off a wound and waste a bunch of time repeatedly doing so to no real meaningful effect just because they could


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 03:20:40


Post by: yukishiro1


Yeah, but again, that's a problem with volume of fire and rerolls and AP bonuses and everything else that makes you end up rolling a bajillion dice and making armor marginally effective.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 03:40:40


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Same issue that they described with overwatch: If you're just rolling dice fishing for 6's because you can, then it's wasting time in the game. A bunch of Slugga boyz firing at Knight 'cause they've got nothing else to do shouldn't be a thing.

Plus it's not a "realism" argument, it's just something that doesn't work on a conceptual level. Infantry don't unload their weapons into enemy armour in the hope they'll get lucky. They take cover and call in anti-tank assets.



There's tons of exposed crap on Knights and other vehicles.

Whilst many hand-held infantry anti-tank weapons will not penetrate the front armor of a tank, they may penetrate the less heavily armored top, rear, and sides. Anti-tank weapons can damage the tracks or running gear to inflict a mobility kill. Early WWII tanks had open vision slits that could be fired through to kill the crew. Later tanks' slits had thick glass, as well as sights and periscopes which could still be damaged with powerful small arms such as anti-tank rifles and heavy machine guns, hampering the crew. If all else fails, the hatch could also be forced open and grenades thrown inside, although later tank designs often have hatches designed to be difficult to open from the outside.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 04:02:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


Want infantry to be able to realistically bring down heavy armour without dedicated anti-tank weapons? Let em stick them with krak grenades and melta bombs in cc again. An infantry squad can bring down a warhound titan if they stick enough melta bombs in the right place.

Worked for First Claw.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 05:12:15


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
There's tons of exposed crap on Knights and other vehicles.
Yeah and they still wouldn't shoot them for that reason.

As I said, infantrymen don't unload small arms, draining their M-16 magazines and then moving onto their sidearms and then finally their combat knives in the hope that the weight of fire and the chance of hitting "weak spots" will blow up enemy tanks. They call in dedicated AT support instead.

And it is fishing for 6's.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 05:50:21


Post by: Spoletta


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There's tons of exposed crap on Knights and other vehicles.
Yeah and they still wouldn't shoot them for that reason.

As I said, infantrymen don't unload small arms, draining their M-16 magazines and then moving onto their sidearms and then finally their combat knives in the hope that the weight of fire and the chance of hitting "weak spots" will blow up enemy tanks. They call in dedicated AT support instead.

And it is fishing for 6's.



In a modern conflict and using modern warfare rules they will not.

This will not stop an ork at unloading his shoota just because he can.
That will not stop a tyranid at shooting whatever crap he has at the tank.
That will not stop an Astartes, because they have mini rocket launchers and the accuracy to make it count.
That will not stop a necron from disintegrating your armor.
That will not stop even guards at times! Because not firing at the enemy and running for cover can be bad news if you have a commissar near you!


In the end, 40K is not an highly logical and highly efficient warfare. Soldiers are not kept in high consideration due to morale reasons and due to the high cost of training one. In 40K life is cheap pretty much for all factions.

40K warfare is a meatgrinder where selfless/foolish/desperate acts like unloading your gun at a tank are a common sight, and the rule system of 40K needs to manage those kind of actions, because they are dramatic and epic. You can't just say "Lol dumb move everyone dies", because the narrative of 40K is not like that.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 06:04:39


Post by: aphyon


To funny. they have a rule that existed in 2nd ed, they then removed it for 3rd, 4th and 5th, brought it back in 6th (and i say it was a fine part of the game that never should have left) but then they redesign the entire game mechanics and suddenly it becomes a problem ...so now they highly restrict it's use.

Gotta love the GW roller coaster.




Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 06:18:13


Post by: JawRippa


 aphyon wrote:
To funny. they have a rule that existed in 2nd ed, they then removed it for 3rd, 4th and 5th, brought it back in 6th (and i say it was a fine part of the game that never should have left) but then they redesign the entire game mechanics and suddenly it becomes a problem ...so now they highly restrict it's use.

Gotta love the GW roller coaster.


Wasn't Overwatch a completely different beast back then? Instead of freebie shooting you had to skip your shooting phase to shoot during opponent's turn?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 06:23:18


Post by: Eldarain


 JawRippa wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
To funny. they have a rule that existed in 2nd ed, they then removed it for 3rd, 4th and 5th, brought it back in 6th (and i say it was a fine part of the game that never should have left) but then they redesign the entire game mechanics and suddenly it becomes a problem ...so now they highly restrict it's use.

Gotta love the GW roller coaster.


Wasn't Overwatch a completely different beast back then? Instead of freebie shooting you had to skip your shooting phase to shoot during opponent's turn?

Correct. The free bullets version added in 6th shares little beyond the name and whose turn it happens in.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 06:27:46


Post by: JawRippa


I have a funny theory. Since charging is not punished all the time by opponent showering your squad with dice, you can attempt any 12" charge. This could probably slow down the game, so in time GW will return fixed charging ranges based on movement speed.

Now THAT would be some roller coasting I'd love to see


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 06:59:38


Post by: Eldarain


 JawRippa wrote:
I have a funny theory. Since charging is not punished all the time by opponent showering your squad with dice, you can attempt any 12" charge. This could probably slow down the game, so in time GW will return fixed charging ranges based on movement speed.

Now THAT would be some roller coasting I'd love to see

A rumor that correctly predicted the Overwatch change also said you'll fail multi charges if you don't reach every target. Presumably in direct response to the removal of the previous deterrent.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 07:00:36


Post by: Blackie


 JawRippa wrote:
I have a funny theory. Since charging is not punished all the time by opponent showering your squad with dice, you can attempt any 12" charge. This could probably slow down the game, so in time GW will return fixed charging ranges based on movement speed.

Now THAT would be some roller coasting I'd love to see


Not that rolling charges really slows the game down because, you know, not many charges are actually rolled but I'd also love fixed charging ranges, I'd just keep the dice rolling for units that arrive by deep strike because otherwise they'd either teleport and auto charge (broken combo) or can't charge at all, being 9'' from the enemy and having lower charge range.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 07:35:36


Post by: dhallnet


yukishiro1 wrote:
Troops with knives destroying a tank isn't that far-fetched. Obviously they're not going to be chopping the tank up with their knives, but you can think of it as infantry swarming the tank and disabling its treads, ripping stuff off it, or prying a cover open and getting into the tank to kill the people inside it.

Yeah, you're gonna pry open armoured plates on a moving tank with a knife. In the span of a battle.
And the guys inside will be surprised and not prepared to take you out when you manage to get in.
It all makes sense !


Nor is it particularly far-fetched that a lot of laser guns or exploding slugs can damage and ultimately disable a tank with enough shots. Every weapon in 40k is much more deadly than the weapons we have today.

Anti infantery weapons/ammo isn't designed to take out vehicles. It will scratch the paint job and that's it. Even a bolt, it's an explosive ammo, not an armour plating penetrating device. Even if the weapons are deadlier, the armor is designed to withstand them, otherwise it makes no sense to produce armor in the first place. A tank designed to endure a few lascanon shots, should probably not be concerned at all by lasguns.


The gameplay argument doesn't convince me at all either. I don't see any good that comes from making heavy units completely immune to weaker weapons. The reason people gravitate towards mid-S weaponry is because it's the most efficient against a wide range of targets - isn't that exactly as it should be? At the very most, it's an argument that things like lascannons are overcosted - in which case, just bring down their points?

We are arguing that mid-S weapons are too efficient because the wounding table favors them too much.
You are arguing that since they are so efficient AV weapons should cost less.
It's debatable how to fix this but it seems we are agreeing there is an issue. I personally don't think it's worth risking AV weapons becoming decent against elites by diminishing their cost just to keep knifes being able to blow up tanks.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 07:40:34


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 JawRippa wrote:
I have a funny theory. Since charging is not punished all the time by opponent showering your squad with dice, you can attempt any 12" charge. This could probably slow down the game, so in time GW will return fixed charging ranges based on movement speed.

Now THAT would be some roller coasting I'd love to see


Would it slow it down though?

A charged unit rolling to hit, to wound, charging unit rolling saves then charge unit rolling damage (where applicable) followed by potential backup saves by the charging unit simply does not equate to ‘roll 2D6 to determine your charge reach’. Even where re-rolls and other perks might be involved.

Rolling for every charge you could potentially make does not slow the game down. Like, at all.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 07:44:23


Post by: aphyon


dhallnet wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Troops with knives destroying a tank isn't that far-fetched. Obviously they're not going to be chopping the tank up with their knives, but you can think of it as infantry swarming the tank and disabling its treads, ripping stuff off it, or prying a cover open and getting into the tank to kill the people inside it.

Yeah, you're gonna pry open armoured plates on a moving tank with a knife. In the span of a battle.
And the guys inside will be surprised and not prepared to take you out when you manage to get in.
It all makes sense !


Nor is it particularly far-fetched that a lot of laser guns or exploding slugs can damage and ultimately disable a tank with enough shots. Every weapon in 40k is much more deadly than the weapons we have today.

Anti infantery weapons/ammo isn't designed to take out vehicles. It will scratch the paint job and that's it. Even a bolt, it's an explosive ammo, not an armour plating penetrating device. Even if the weapons are deadlier, the armor is designed to withstand them, otherwise it makes no sense to produce armor in the first place. A tank designed to endure a few lascanon shots, should probably not be concerned at all by lasguns.


The gameplay argument doesn't convince me at all either. I don't see any good that comes from making heavy units completely immune to weaker weapons. The reason people gravitate towards mid-S weaponry is because it's the most efficient against a wide range of targets - isn't that exactly as it should be? At the very most, it's an argument that things like lascannons are overcosted - in which case, just bring down their points?

We are arguing that mid-S weapons are too efficient because the wounding table favors them too much.
You are arguing that since they are so efficient AV weapons should cost less.
It's debatable how to fix this but it seems we are agreeing there is an issue. I personally don't think it's worth risking AV weapons becoming decent against elites by diminishing their cost just to keep knifes being able to blow up tanks.



Great points dhallnet, it is one of the more infuriating things about 8th edition for me when it comes to immersion. you want to kill a tank, bring a dedicated anti-take weapon...otherwise you just roll crew inconvenienced (TSOLR joke)

There is no way an infantry arm should be able to even damage a tank especially facing front armor. or infantry "swarming " a tank moving at combat speed. lets see you run up to and hit/jump on a tank doing 30MPH + 4th edition vehicle assault rules got that part right.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 08:16:20


Post by: Sherrypie


Infantry swarming vehicles has always been a thing. In the battles of Shanghai and Taierzhuang Chinese forces used suicide bombers with grenade and dynamite harnesses to literally throw themselves under the tracks and succeeded in halting the Japanese armour from advancing in the second Sino-Japanese war. During the Winter War, Finnish ambush troops regularily stopped and destroyed Soviet tanks by forcing firewood in their tracks and filling their engine decks with Molotov cocktails. Same with the undersupplied insurgents of the Warsow uprising. Or the desperate night battles of the Pacific with US marines etc.

It's not that taking armour out by hand is stretching any believability, it's just very dangerous. In 40k you have endless masses of troops either too dumb or fanatic to care about their lives, so it's very much the expectation that an unsupported tank will get destroyed in close assaults in short order even if it makes the enemy pay a high price in men to do so.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 08:23:18


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


It’s also not them beating on the hull with fists, is it?

Get up close, jam the barrel of your gun in a vision slit and have at it, or jam a Krak Grenade under an armour plate, right in the squishy bits. Hell, even stuff rags into exhaust pipes, blocking them up as best you can.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 08:41:35


Post by: dhallnet


 Sherrypie wrote:
Infantry swarming vehicles has always been a thing. In the battles of Shanghai and Taierzhuang Chinese forces used suicide bombers with grenade and dynamite harnesses to literally throw themselves under the tracks and succeeded in halting the Japanese armour from advancing in the second Sino-Japanese war. During the Winter War, Finnish ambush troops regularily stopped and destroyed Soviet tanks by forcing firewood in their tracks and filling their engine decks with Molotov cocktails. Same with the undersupplied insurgents of the Warsow uprising. Or the desperate night battles of the Pacific with US marines etc.

It's not that taking armour out by hand is stretching any believability, it's just very dangerous. In 40k you have endless masses of troops either too dumb or fanatic to care about their lives, so it's very much the expectation that an unsupported tank will get destroyed in close assaults in short order even if it makes the enemy pay a high price in men to do so.

Infantry fighting tanks with grenades or stratagems is fine. Them hitting tanks with their fist or using their knife as can openers, isn't.
Infantry doesn't pay a high price in men if they assault a tank in 8ed since they are immune to any damage as long as they stay in contact unless the tank explode.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 08:52:37


Post by: Tristanleo


 Blackie wrote:
 JawRippa wrote:
I have a funny theory. Since charging is not punished all the time by opponent showering your squad with dice, you can attempt any 12" charge. This could probably slow down the game, so in time GW will return fixed charging ranges based on movement speed.

Now THAT would be some roller coasting I'd love to see


Not that rolling charges really slows the game down because, you know, not many charges are actually rolled but I'd also love fixed charging ranges, I'd just keep the dice rolling for units that arrive by deep strike because otherwise they'd either teleport and auto charge (broken combo) or can't charge at all, being 9'' from the enemy and having lower charge range.


Instead of a fixed charge range, wouldn't it be more ideal to consider charge as similar to an advance move? I mean, if a model moves 12" normally, how does it make sense that they could fail a 3" charge. To balance out, wouldn't a system of you use your movement rate (To a maximum of 6") plus D6" for charge range. That way, people aren't crossing the entire board in a single charge move, the 12" bubble of charge is still largely in play and charging feels like less of a flop.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 09:04:26


Post by: Sherrypie


dhallnet wrote:
 Sherrypie wrote:
Infantry swarming vehicles has always been a thing. In the battles of Shanghai and Taierzhuang Chinese forces used suicide bombers with grenade and dynamite harnesses to literally throw themselves under the tracks and succeeded in halting the Japanese armour from advancing in the second Sino-Japanese war. During the Winter War, Finnish ambush troops regularily stopped and destroyed Soviet tanks by forcing firewood in their tracks and filling their engine decks with Molotov cocktails. Same with the undersupplied insurgents of the Warsow uprising. Or the desperate night battles of the Pacific with US marines etc.

It's not that taking armour out by hand is stretching any believability, it's just very dangerous. In 40k you have endless masses of troops either too dumb or fanatic to care about their lives, so it's very much the expectation that an unsupported tank will get destroyed in close assaults in short order even if it makes the enemy pay a high price in men to do so.

Infantry fighting tanks with grenades or stratagems is fine. Them hitting tanks with their fist or using their knife as can openers, isn't.
Infantry doesn't pay a high price in men if they assault a tank in 8ed since they are immune to any damage as long as they stay in contact unless the tank explode.


That's called abstraction. It matters not if the rules say "close combat weapons" or if you cannot explicitly chuck a grenade with X rules on it in combat, the dudes in the situation are using what they have. It's not that they are literally punching knives through steel plates, they are doing something akin to the many ways already described that have stopped tanks in the real world. The game doesn't care about micromanaging actions like "trooper Jenkins tries to crawl under the machine gun and shoot the commander through a cupola port", it's more about "this unit isn't equipped for tank busting, I can still sacrifice them to keep it busy" or "this unit has supadupa scifi weapons, I can expect it to punch a tank open". Details are irrelevant, even if the narrative is more obvious when a Carnifex flips a tank over.

Also, please show me when in 8th you DIDN'T take losses with infantry units that had to first cross the field and suffer repeated turns of firing from Leman Russ Punishers and what not, eat buffed up Overwatch en masse and just die from other shooting when the slightly scratched tank fell back from the intrepid handful of regular schmoes attacking it with shovels

A game of 40k is a vignette, a snapshot of thematic moments emulating real battle stories instead of simulating them.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 09:24:21


Post by: Ice_can


 catbarf wrote:
It takes 99 S4 hits on average to kill a Predator, or 216 S4 hits to kill a Leman Russ. How many of the people complaining about this remote possibility have actually done so in-game?

The complaint is based on the sheer possibility that a low-strength attack could hurt a tank, so switching to a D10 wouldn't fix anything- people would still complain that theoretically enough lasguns could roll 10s or whatever to kill a Predator from full health.

Except your probability with rerolls upon rerolls and bonus with +1 etc etc starts to squew the maths very heavily suddenly and far past the point of reasonable.

+1 strength as a bonus vrs +1 to wound is a very different level of bonus

Not to mention the issue of AP not differentiated between vehicals and monsters vrs infantry. Every dang Marine gets full rerolls on hits, rerolls on wounds, can have bonus AP or Mortals on 6's and avarages Ap-2.

It takes only 48 bolt rifle shots from Intercessors turn 2&3 to kill a predator with CM & LT buffs that's the real problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Ice_can wrote:


Also GW saying they will be updating rules that alter overwatch, literally Tau septs full faction bonus.
However what they aren't going to say is that fixing these subfactions that are now without a trait will be done in their 9th edition codex


Where has GW said this? I don't see it on the Overwatch article.

That's what the sarcasm is about they aren't explaining how subfactions who's whole bonus is 5+ overwatch are going to be rebalanced inlight of the core rules meaning you can no longer overwatch and that 90% of the time it's still not going to be worth spending the CP.

It's why them dragging these previews out for ever is so tiresome.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 09:49:03


Post by: aphyon


WOW...ok where to start with this fictional argument


lets do the easy one first

Get up close, jam the barrel of your gun in a vision slit and have at it,


one word-periscopes there is no direct way into the tank through a vision slit this isn't WWII(even they hard armored glass)

or jam a Krak Grenade under an armour plate, right in the squishy bits.


S6 anti-light armor weapon check already said use anti-tank to kill tank.

nfantry swarming vehicles has always been a thing. In the battles of Shanghai and Taierzhuang Chinese forces used suicide bombers with grenade and dynamite harnesses[u]


Again-NOT infantry small arms a dynamite harness is an anti-tank weapon.


Finnish ambush troops regularily stopped and destroyed Soviet tanks by forcing firewood in their tracks and filling their engine decks with Molotov cocktails.


Like the mention of japanese tanks above lets talk about what these early tanks were

the Finnish were fighting soviet t-26s
.top offroad speed-9.9 MPH, on-road 19 MPH
.crew of 3
..armor sides/front-15mm (.59 inches)/top/bottom 6mm (.24 inches)

The most common japanese tank the HA-GO was very similar in performance


So early the tanks you are using as an example were incredibly slow and armored for small arms fire protection.

The M2 .50 cal machinegun used by the US with a standard m8 API projectile used during this time will go straight through the best armor on those tanks at 500m...thats' a heavy stubber in 40K terms on TT.


Now compare that to something closer to 40K

The M113 MRV used by the austrailian military and others that the space marine predator light tank is directly modeled on.

It is an up -armored M113 with an autocannon turret.

.on-road speed -42mph
.add on and ablative armor, periscopes, advanced electronics etc...

lets just say it is a bit faster and more armored than what you are comparing it to.

go ahead and try to swarm it when it is doing something like 30mph off road and it is impervious to infantry small arms
(note machineguns removed for this static display)






That isn't even getting into the comparable armor of a MBT akin to a leman russ or land raider.

the fact that 8th ed allows you damage tanks with infantry small arms at all is purely for game mechanic balance, not anywhere close to reasonable from the standpoint of immersion.





Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:11:40


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Sherrypie wrote:
Infantry swarming vehicles has always been a thing. In the battles of Shanghai and Taierzhuang Chinese forces used suicide bombers with grenade and dynamite harnesses to literally throw themselves under the tracks and succeeded in halting the Japanese armour from advancing in the second Sino-Japanese war. During the Winter War, Finnish ambush troops regularily stopped and destroyed Soviet tanks by forcing firewood in their tracks and filling their engine decks with Molotov cocktails. Same with the undersupplied insurgents of the Warsow uprising. Or the desperate night battles of the Pacific with US marines etc.
I've bolded the important parts of this paragraph. Kind've makes our argument rather than those arguing for 6's always wound.

 Sherrypie wrote:
That's called abstraction.
Nope. You don't get to make that cop-out argument. The game has melta-bombs, krak grenades, haywire grenades and all sorts of things specifically made for close-up anit-tank work. If they weren't part of the game you could abstract that all units have similar sorts of devices for that kind of attack, but they don't. GW have specifically made this close-ranged anti-tank devices. That is their task.

You don't fix bayonets to take out a Lord of Skulls.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:15:36


Post by: Sherrypie


You're missing the point.

Common soldiers with potatoes and bottles of fuel have stopped tanks in real life. Scifi soldiers with cy-potatoes and promethium canisters will stop scifi tanks in fictional settings. Neither case is optimal compared to shooting the things from afar from the viewpoint of the soldier, but when it is necessary, an ingenious mind in dire straits will find a way (like the periscope example, just climb to it and whack it with a hammer so the tank can't see - degrades to -1 BS, tadaa! Abstraction!)

The game doesn't care about every bit of rations, camping equipment or cutting torches a squad might carry and utilize in unorthodox manner often heard of in war memoirs. Neither do the tanks constantly cruise at combat speeds (especially on urban ruins, geez), terrain is more nuanced than our conveniently flat surfaces and so on. What matters is that it IS physically possible to take out vehicles without heavy guns and the rules allow for that through elusive odds. I do concur it's silly when infantry weapons like Intercessor rifles do it reliably, but hold it just as silly to say they shouldn't be able to do anything.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:21:10


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Sherrypie wrote:
Common soldiers with potatoes and bottles of fuel have stopped tanks in real life.
Again, the bolded part helps us, not you.

These are troops, using specific implements to defeat a tank (ie. spreading a fire). The game, 40K, has these implements already - meltabombs, haywire, kraks, EMP, etc. - and these are what they are used for. They are not abstracted. They are given specific rules because that is how infantry deal with armour up close - with explosives, mines and other things that set fires and case things to go boom (and, ok, EMP as well I guess).

Not with a choppa.
Not with a bayonet.
Not with a gauntleted fist (unless it's a power fist! )
Not with a laspistol.
Not even with a chainsword!

As I just said:

"If [meltabombs, et al.] weren't part of the game you could abstract that all units have similar sorts of devices for that kind of attack, but [GW] don't."

And as the point of this has been rolling dice to fish for 6's, my argument about troops unloading small arms into vehicles just doesn't happen, and saying "it's an abstraction" like that makes it suddenly ok is a terrible argument (it's a cop-out, as I said - you get to abandon all logic and reason in favour of "It happens just 'cause!").




Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:21:39


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Well, your argument might work for some of the advanced tanks in 40K, but Predators, Vindicators, Rhinos, Impulsors, Repulsors do all have sight slits.

And who's to say lasguns or handheld rapid-firing grenade launchers (Bolter) can't destroy periscopes or other alien mechanics to help a tank? They don't have to make the tank explode, but they can disable it.
I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K. Though it's not far fetched to say an imperial Commissar might actually command their soldies to attack a tank with their bayonets, usually the CC would represent some kind of explosives/ improvised anti tank gear.
And thinking of Orks and Tyranids - they're Alien soldiers with uncomparable strength to real life, they might literally be able to tear a tank apart with their bare hands/ claws.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:25:22


Post by: harlokin


It's important to my immersion that psychic powers shouldn't be able to damage tanks in 40K, cos I've never heard of one being able to do so historically.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:25:54


Post by: H.B.M.C.


That's neither constructive nor helpful. Nor relevant, for that matter.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K.
They used comp-B sticky bombs. Not pistols and bayonets. They used purpose-built (however improvised) explosives. Not small arms.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Though it's not far fetched to say an imperial Commissar might actually command their soldies to attack a tank with their bayonets, usually the CC would represent some kind of explosives/ improvised anti tank gear.
No! No. A thousand times no.

The game HAS these types of explosives - Krak grenades, melta-bombs, etc. - GW actually went and included them in the game. You aren't abstracting anything because these things already exist and have rules. When you attack a tank with explosives, the unit is equipped with said explosives, because they're in the game.

If they weren't in the game, then you could justify an abstraction, but they literally have rules for this exact situation we're describing, and you're arguing in favour of abstracting it when the game already includes the things you're trying to abstract.

How can I make this clearer?




Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:40:18


Post by: Sherrypie


Your argument fails on its premise, because people do shoot at hard targets. It just doesn't tend to be effective. Inexperienced guerrillas, insurgents, soldiers ordered to fight futilely commanded by idiots (not a rare occurance in real life nor this dark satire of a galaxy gone mad), frightened people with no options, trigger happy aliens and what have you. It isn't effective and the logistics department will hate you for it, but occasionally you do hit a weak spot. Heck, infantry has used rifles to shoot down airplanes when suitably lucky and motivated

Again, 40k the game is not a simulation of battle confitions. It is a game to emulate cool moments like that time trooper Jenkins did manage to use his blowtorch to breach the top hatch of that chaos land raider and shot the driver. Long shot odds of rare but plausible things to remember are a design goal for the system.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:44:46


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's interesting to see that part of what motivated them to change Overwatch was the way it was a lot of dice rolling for not a lot of effect. As someone put it earlier, the way you would "fish for sixes". I would hope that GW realises that the very same thing applies to the general To Wound chart, given that everything can wound everything on a 6, and thus you can always fish for sixes.

It'd be nice if they made it so certain weapons cannot hurt tougher targets to remove this pointless dice rolling as well.

 AndrewC wrote:
And nobody has mentioned or noted that Look out Sir is back as a rule?
That's the part I saw. Very worrisome.



I bet its just a proper name for the character targeting rules. It seems they are giving mechanics actual rules now instead of baking them into other mechanics.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:46:19


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I bet its just a proper name for the character targeting rules. It seems they are giving mechanics actual rules now instead of baking them into other mechanics.
Hey, look, I'm completely willing to admit that my fears may be for nothing. I'm just concerned that GW saw some issues with untargateble characters and then did what they always do, swinging that pendulum as hard to the other side as possible, allowing all characters to be targeted.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 10:52:41


Post by: Ice_can


 Sherrypie wrote:
Your argument fails on its premise, because people do shoot at hard targets. It just doesn't tend to be effective. Inexperienced guerrillas, insurgents, soldiers ordered to fight futilely commanded by idiots (not a rare occurance in real life nor this dark satire of a galaxy gone mad), frightened people with no options, trigger happy aliens and what have you. It isn't effective and the logistics department will hate you for it, but occasionally you do hit a weak spot. Heck, infantry has used rifles to shoot down airplanes when suitably lucky and motivated

Again, 40k the game is not a simulation of battle confitions. It is a game to emulate cool moments like that time trooper Jenkins did manage to use his blowtorch to breach the top hatch of that chaos land raider and shot the driver. Long shot odds of rare but plausible things to remember are a design goal for the system.


The issue is with +1 to wound and rerolls for days being handed out and T values for Vehivals not being set high enough that rare one or two wounds can become silly reliable.

Fishing for 6's after 6's is as GW said a complete waste of both players time. However if your fishing for 5&6 and have rerolls for days that 1in 36 suddenly start hitting like 1in 6 and higher in some cases. Thats the bigger issue, they value vehicals like they are only being wounded 1 in 36+, but in reality with all the bugfs floating around in the game they die like 1 in 6 wounds succeed.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 11:02:38


Post by: Sherrypie


I agree. Rifles should be able to do something on the level of abstraction the system works, but not reliably kill vehicles. Reducing available buffs would be a good thing all around.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 11:05:20


Post by: dhallnet


 Sherrypie wrote:

Also, please show me when in 8th you DIDN'T take losses with infantry units that had to first cross the field and suffer repeated turns of firing from Leman Russ Punishers and what not, eat buffed up Overwatch en masse and just die from other shooting when the slightly scratched tank fell back from the intrepid handful of regular schmoes attacking it with shovels

Ah so what you meant in your examples was that approaching a tank was deadly but once they were close, they were safe ? Ok.
Otherwise you could take a look at deepstriking and combos allowing to one turn charge across the board.

I was replying to someone explaining to me how infantry was tearing armor plates appart with their knife. This is just dumb.
But maybe we should also abstract heavy weapons and anti infantry weapons while we're at it. Just write that everyone have a lasguns equivalent in every case, it doesn't matter. Maybe then you would be nice enough to explain the abstraction were infantry stabs to death dreadnoughts, heavy grav tanks, carnifexes and wraithlords ? They build huge traps on the battlefield like the ewoks and then inflicts a million papercuts ? They use the force to disturb anti gravitation engines ? Oh yes, sorry, jsut abstract they do something else.
I think we should go further and also abstract that infantry can deal with planes. Most doesn't have equipment to deal with it on their datasheet but abstract that every unit has enough engineering skills to build a weapon with the ressources found on the field since throwing abstracted molotov cocktails might not cut it (using a scifi trebuchet against a plane seems as smart as everything else I heard this far). Seems only fair, after all having stuff impervious to other stuff is probably bad design.

Or we could go the other way and abstract that since infantry taking out tanks and alike in the middle of the battle (could prepare traps or what not before hand, but not while fighting) without the correct equipment is kind of a rare occurrence and a desperate move, it isn't possible. So we could just have infantry that can't deal with tanks and infantry that can because it has a clear reason to, like being equipped with the correct gear or having stratagems representing their creative usage of other resources...

I think I can deal with abstraction just fine, it just happens that I think that it's the mechanic (the "to wound" chart) that is an issue, not its representation and all I hear for justifying it is "you can be creative".


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 11:18:52


Post by: aphyon


I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K.


That was a movie with a scene made for dramatic effect. that was supposed to be a tiger 1, they do not have open vision slits, it is armored glass you can't just shoot through it with a tommy gun and kill the people inside the tank.


Tyranids - they might literally be able to tear a tank apart with their bare hands/ claws.


yes because things like carnifexes and trygons are literally their version of an anti-tank weapon since they are living tanks themselves.

This little tangent has taken us way off topic. but it basically is GW re-inventing rules they had before in a new way to try and fix something they screwed up(again)

They have done this in every edition with rules that were good, then removed only to bring them back in some way later or conversely try something that turned out terrible but rinse and repeat the same kind of mistake in the next edition.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 11:25:08


Post by: Spoletta


The old wound chart has been around for a long time.

With time, it showed obvious flaws.

It was discarded for good reasons.

Long live the new chart.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 11:35:31


Post by: the_scotsman


Karol wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Karol wrote:
never had an opponent unit charge something my with enough shots charge, unless they could ingore overwatch. for 5 man squads it was mostly irrelevant, if free rules. small nerf, but hardly worth the worry for me.

It does make IH seem strange though. If they can use their chapter tactic only on 1 unit and only 1 CP, it gets a lot worse.


I mean, until you realize that they have another half of their chapter tactic...the 6+ FNP, which several other factions have as their chapter tactic but WITHOUT the bonus overwatch thing.

...and also don't get doctrines

...or superdoctrines

...or their own psychic powers

...or 6 relics 6 strats etc etc etc etc.

I think the Iron Hands will be FINE compared to other factions' abilities.


But it doesn't make them the best. Specialy in a low CP enviroment. Who cares if about weaker armies when they picked IH to be the best. That is like telling an Inari player that he shouldn't worry, because lets say DA are in much worse situation, if he just takes his models and plays them as plain alaitoc elder.
No one should compare themselfs to those are the lower then them, it makes no sense and hinders growth.


Weird example, given that ynnari are currently the single weakest army in the game, but you do you I guess.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 11:46:54


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 aphyon wrote:
I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K.


That was a movie with a scene made for dramatic effect.


Exactly. And that's what 40K is, too. An over the top Science-Fantasy with "cinematic rules". There are Supersoldiers riding wolves, orks with lasercannons, elves in clown costumes, wizards and other things. No, 20 Soldiers attacking a tank and being a nuisance for it doesn't break my immersion. I know this since Command & Conquer 1. I've played battlefield where you take a screwdriver and run towards a tank to disable it.
I can understand that for some people this sounds too abstract, or not "realistic" enough, but we're playing Warhammer 40K here, not [insert a historically accurate wargame].


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 11:53:11


Post by: Martel732


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K.


That was a movie with a scene made for dramatic effect.


Exactly. And that's what 40K is, too. An over the top Science-Fantasy with "cinematic rules". There are Supersoldiers riding wolves, orks with lasercannons, elves in clown costumes, wizards and other things. No, 20 Soldiers attacking a tank and being a nuisance for it doesn't break my immersion. I know this since Command & Conquer 1. I've played battlefield where you take a screwdriver and run towards a tank to disable it.
I can understand that for some people this sounds too abstract, or not "realistic" enough, but we're playing Warhammer 40K here, not [insert a historically accurate wargame].


Yet, some realism is needed for battles to have any meaning at all. The fact that I can spread my marines in starcraft to reduce baneling damage, but can no longer do the same in 40K for blasts is not a positive imo.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 12:32:05


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 harlokin wrote:
It's important to my immersion that psychic powers shouldn't be able to damage tanks in 40K, cos I've never heard of one being able to do so historically.


quite so, of course the real cover up is the crews dying to MIND BULLETS


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 13:12:30


Post by: catbarf


Ice_can wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
It takes 99 S4 hits on average to kill a Predator, or 216 S4 hits to kill a Leman Russ. How many of the people complaining about this remote possibility have actually done so in-game?

The complaint is based on the sheer possibility that a low-strength attack could hurt a tank, so switching to a D10 wouldn't fix anything- people would still complain that theoretically enough lasguns could roll 10s or whatever to kill a Predator from full health.

Except your probability with rerolls upon rerolls and bonus with +1 etc etc starts to squew the maths very heavily suddenly and far past the point of reasonable.

+1 strength as a bonus vrs +1 to wound is a very different level of bonus

Not to mention the issue of AP not differentiated between vehicals and monsters vrs infantry. Every dang Marine gets full rerolls on hits, rerolls on wounds, can have bonus AP or Mortals on 6's and avarages Ap-2.

It takes only 48 bolt rifle shots from Intercessors turn 2&3 to kill a predator with CM & LT buffs that's the real problem.


I don't really see a problem with over four hundred points of Marines, backed up by multiple characters, taking out a tank- but if anything, that points to a bigger issue being the way Marines get re-rolls and bonus AP handed out like candy. It takes five whole squads of Guardsmen four turns of continuous fire at under half range to accomplish the same; that's not something that actually happens in play.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 13:15:48


Post by: Tycho


It's important to my immersion that psychic powers shouldn't be able to damage tanks in 40K, cos I've never heard of one being able to do so historically.


I don't really have a dog in this fight (outside of agreeing that really basic things like choppas really have no place wounding a tank), but what's kind of ironic about this discussion is that the 2nd ed rule book actually specifically said something like "infantry units in base to base contact with vehicles auto-hit. This represents the model jamming a gun barrel through a vision slit, or dropping a grenade through an open turret."

So at least in "40k history", you COULD wound a predator by firing through the vision slit.

I don't know which side of the argument I really sit on, but just find it funny that got brought up. There is at least precedence for things like Predators and Russ tanks being "wounded" in that manner. Remember, we THINK we're playing a sci-fi game, but we're working with rules writers who think it's the Napoleonic Wars, so weird things are bound to happen ....


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 13:38:00


Post by: amanita


I find it amusing that the effectiveness of basic infantry weapons against tanks is somehow valid due to abstraction, yet since 6th Ed. infantry close combat weapons drag the game down with totally unnecessary AP-specific weaponry. There used to be power weapons or not, which makes more sense than the current or recent systems, especially on the scale depicted in the game. GW oversimplifies one aspect while over-complicating others.

Hopefully their new Overwatch mechanic will find that middle sweet spot.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 13:50:49


Post by: Tycho


Meant to say this earlier and got sidetracked -

Over all, this is one of the first changes I actually like. IMO, most of the other things we've seen to this point won't have the intended effect (points increase to speed up game play, etc), or are outright bad ways to solve a problem, but this one has potential.

Just like the changes I view as "negative", I'm withholding judgement. There is every possibility they ruin this by giving just enough armies the ability to ignore the rule that it essentially makes the rule pointless. We shall see, but for now at least, I'm optimistic on this one.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 13:51:01


Post by: the_scotsman


 amanita wrote:
I find it amusing that the effectiveness of basic infantry weapons against tanks is somehow valid due to abstraction, yet since 6th Ed. infantry close combat weapons drag the game down with totally unnecessary AP-specific weaponry. There used to be power weapons or not, which makes more sense than the current or recent systems, especially on the scale depicted in the game. GW oversimplifies one aspect while over-complicating others.

Hopefully their new Overwatch mechanic will find that middle sweet spot.


Yeah, GW have gotten really stupid with their distinctions between an axe and a sword and a maul.

Now, hold on, I need to look up the stats for my squad sergeant's neovolkite chargeblast annihilator, it's got a different statline to the regular occularium boltlaunch chadrifles the rest of the squad is equipped with. Am I in specularis doctrine this turn or shadenfreude doctrine, I don't remember, it makes my AP better for wepons with 'bolt' in the name and my Steel Sharks chapter can reroll 1s to hit and 3s to wound while they're in shadenfreude.

Sorry, can you - can you take a look at these color swatches with me and make sure I'm supposed to be using the rules for the Steel Sharks or the Greige Wombats chapter? I got those in the latest white dwarf and I really think they better match my paint scheme.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 14:00:27


Post by: Daedalus81


dhallnet wrote:

Anti infantery weapons/ammo isn't designed to take out vehicles. It will scratch the paint job and that's it. Even a bolt, it's an explosive ammo, not an armour plating penetrating device. Even if the weapons are deadlier, the armor is designed to withstand them, otherwise it makes no sense to produce armor in the first place. A tank designed to endure a few lascanon shots, should probably not be concerned at all by lasguns.



Even seen a tank move without its tracks on? Or a turret swivel when it is jammed? Or drive under fire without a periscope? Or the engine block overheat, because the exhaust is destroyed?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 14:02:22


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Sherrypie wrote:
Common soldiers with potatoes and bottles of fuel have stopped tanks in real life.
Again, the bolded part helps us, not you.

These are troops, using specific implements to defeat a tank (ie. spreading a fire). The game, 40K, has these implements already - meltabombs, haywire, kraks, EMP, etc. - and these are what they are used for. They are not abstracted. They are given specific rules because that is how infantry deal with armour up close - with explosives, mines and other things that set fires and case things to go boom (and, ok, EMP as well I guess).

Not with a choppa.
Not with a bayonet.
Not with a gauntleted fist (unless it's a power fist! )
Not with a laspistol.
Not even with a chainsword!

As I just said:

"If [meltabombs, et al.] weren't part of the game you could abstract that all units have similar sorts of devices for that kind of attack, but [GW] don't."

And as the point of this has been rolling dice to fish for 6's, my argument about troops unloading small arms into vehicles just doesn't happen, and saying "it's an abstraction" like that makes it suddenly ok is a terrible argument (it's a cop-out, as I said - you get to abandon all logic and reason in favour of "It happens just 'cause!").



So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 14:07:29


Post by: Tycho


So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!


I hear these are already being added to the new Tank Bustas sprue.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 14:08:37


Post by: dhallnet


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Even seen a tank move without its tracks on? Or a turret swivel when it is jammed? Or drive under fire without a periscope? Or the engine block overheat, because the exhaust is destroyed?

Thanks for an original reply, I don't know what anyone could answer to that and you totally nailed the core of the issue here.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 14:09:07


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Tycho wrote:
So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!


I hear these are already being added to the new Tank Bustas sprue.

Sure a canister of gasoline already makes sense but if I see someone model their Tank Bustaz with some potato Launchers I will marry them.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 14:14:31


Post by: Daedalus81


dhallnet wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

Even seen a tank move without its tracks on? Or a turret swivel when it is jammed? Or drive under fire without a periscope? Or the engine block overheat, because the exhaust is destroyed?

Thanks for an original reply, I don't know what anyone could answer to that and you totally nailed the core of the issue here.


Yea, sorry, the other messages didn't show up for some reason. Not sure why Dakka kicked me to there.

In any case the news today is paint schemes....so nothing new to fight about.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 14:26:12


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!
Are you trying to be obtuse? I can't tell, because at this point you just appear to be intentionally misrepresenting my argument or deliberately ignoring what I'm saying, neither of which paint you in a particularly good light.

And of course the answer is no, because, for the fiftieth fething time, the game already has rules for those sorts of infantry-carried close-range anti-tank weapons (meltas, EMP, etc.). There's no required abstraction because the game already have specific rules for such a things, therefore you don't need infantry fishing for 6's against vehicles to "abstract" the things that are already in the damned game.

What is it about this point that is so hard to understand? Am I speaking another God-damned language here?



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 14:34:43


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!
Are you trying to be obtuse? I can't tell, because at this point you just appear to be intentionally misrepresenting my argument or deliberately ignoring what I'm saying, neither of which paint you in a particularly good light.

And of course the answer is no, because, for the fiftieth fething time, the game already has rules for those sorts of infantry-carried close-range anti-tank weapons (meltas, EMP, etc.). There's no required abstraction because the game already have specific rules for such a things, therefore you don't need infantry fishing for 6's against vehicles to "abstract" the things that are already in the damned game.

What is it about this point that is so hard to understand? Am I speaking another God-damned language here?



I mean if you want to proliferate those weapons out again like rending and melta, sure, but not every army had equal access to those things. Or we can keep it simple and just...not worry about it.

Besides a Genestealer most commonly know for tearing the crap out of terminators that supposedly have incredibly thick armor - are only S4. So they can get entirely through armor of a T8 3+, but can't wound it?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 14:44:15


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Things with unequal access to anti-tank weapons is sensible. You shouldn't say "well, because Space Marines have Krak Grenades, guardsmen should be able to wound tanks with bayonets." Which is how that argument sounds.

For the genestealer example, here's a few assumptions that may help:
1) Tanks are harder to grab onto than terminators to exert force (given that they're somewhat larger and the armor panels are slabs rather than attached to limbs, etc).
2) Tank armor is different in composition to Terminator armor (one gives a 5++ and is based on a system to operate inside a plasma reactor, the other may be any number of different metals and thicknesses).
3) Tank armor is generally thicker than terminator armor, and the weakspots are less present (armpits, elbows, necks - the primary weakspots on a tank are not as weak as those).


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 15:00:11


Post by: Wakshaani


Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 15:25:49


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


But then we have cases in lore where chainswords can kill Deff Dreads - things like cutting through external power cables, pulling open top hatches and doors, and yes, shooting/attacking through vision slits and suchlike.

Plus, I'd say frag grenades fit the bill of explosives - and they're, what, S4? S3? There's your molotovs.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 15:30:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

Right up until they rocked up to a Leman Russ Demolisher - with the extra siege plating - and couldn't meaningfully hurt it (in both cases). What, a game where relative armor matters and extra siege plating on a tank makes a difference? Nah, dial it back, that's too realistic.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:But then we have cases in lore where chainswords can kill Deff Dreads - things like cutting through external power cables, pulling open top hatches and doors, and yes, shooting/attacking through vision slits and suchlike.

Plus, I'd say frag grenades fit the bill of explosives - and they're, what, S4? S3? There's your molotovs.

And when an enemy with frag grenades killed a tank in earlier editions, I was unperturbed. Believe it or not, I've lost Russes to frag grenades in earlier editions. But making 4 attacks with your chainsword, Mr. SM Sergeant, isn't the same thing as making one attack with your grenade. Plus, there were tanks in earlier editions with enough armor to be immune to frag grenades - just like how in Real Life, some vehicles are vulnerable to molotov cocktails and frag grenades, but some are/were not.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 15:56:00


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Things with unequal access to anti-tank weapons is sensible. You shouldn't say "well, because Space Marines have Krak Grenades, guardsmen should be able to wound tanks with bayonets." Which is how that argument sounds.

For the genestealer example, here's a few assumptions that may help:
1) Tanks are harder to grab onto than terminators to exert force (given that they're somewhat larger and the armor panels are slabs rather than attached to limbs, etc).
2) Tank armor is different in composition to Terminator armor (one gives a 5++ and is based on a system to operate inside a plasma reactor, the other may be any number of different metals and thicknesses).
3) Tank armor is generally thicker than terminator armor, and the weakspots are less present (armpits, elbows, necks - the primary weakspots on a tank are not as weak as those).


Let's be honest - you're likely biased, because you enjoy taking gakloads of big tanks and you'd prefer to benefit from the invulnerability.

We no longer have facings or weak points to exploit. Wounding on 6s rounds off the hard edges and makes it a little more equitable. It wouldn't exactly be fair for your big guns to murderlate blobs of infantry and then let you cackle as they're unable to hurt you anyway.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:10:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Things with unequal access to anti-tank weapons is sensible. You shouldn't say "well, because Space Marines have Krak Grenades, guardsmen should be able to wound tanks with bayonets." Which is how that argument sounds.

For the genestealer example, here's a few assumptions that may help:
1) Tanks are harder to grab onto than terminators to exert force (given that they're somewhat larger and the armor panels are slabs rather than attached to limbs, etc).
2) Tank armor is different in composition to Terminator armor (one gives a 5++ and is based on a system to operate inside a plasma reactor, the other may be any number of different metals and thicknesses).
3) Tank armor is generally thicker than terminator armor, and the weakspots are less present (armpits, elbows, necks - the primary weakspots on a tank are not as weak as those).


Let's be honest - you're likely biased, because you enjoy taking gakloads of big tanks and you'd prefer to benefit from the invulnerability.

We no longer have facings or weak points to exploit. Wounding on 6s rounds off the hard edges and makes it a little more equitable. It wouldn't exactly be fair for your big guns to murderlate blobs of infantry and then let you cackle as they're unable to hurt you anyway.



I mean, I am biased, there's no denying that.

That doesn't really address the realism argument at all though, so it stands.

I think there's good reasons to expect that things shouldn't be "equitable" between ill-equipped light infantry with no anti-tank weapons, and heavy tanks.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:24:16


Post by: Martel732


Make AT guns actually reliable and you can have all kinds of tank perks.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:29:54


Post by: Lammia


Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:37:49


Post by: Daedalus81


Lammia wrote:
Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...


Could you elaborate a bit more, please?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:45:30


Post by: yukishiro1


"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:50:13


Post by: Unit1126PLL


yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


Agreed, though the "can only fight stuff you declared a charge against" rule was nonsense anyways and is likely gone, because it doesn't simplify anything and is counter-intuitive.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:52:21


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:53:28


Post by: yukishiro1


If that's gone the change is fine and I don't care. But if it's gone, it undermines a lot of what the playtester is talking about, because there aren't a lot of advantages to declaring against multiple units at that point anyway.

If they're just trying to stop you from declaring against two units in opposite directions from each other that doesn't bother me, as long as you can fight anybody you can reach from the charge + pile in against the target you do charge.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:55:14


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.


The problem is units that Heroically Intervene (fairly common to have a stratagem that allows a unit to pretend to be a character for this purpose, for example). So I put my whatever a few inches back from the front line and literally unchargable (wrapped, say, in the actual target unit).

In the current edition, you can still plan ahead for this unit - just declare it as a charge target, and you can hit it if it heroically intervenes.

In 9th, you won't be able to. That unit will simply always get to hit you for free with no ability to plan around it or even threaten it with your melee squad - since you can't declare it as a charge target or your charge automatically fails.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 16:56:33


Post by: yukishiro1


 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.


I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 17:10:23


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.


I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.


Ok, I see what you're driving at. I guess that's another thing to watch for.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 17:12:29


Post by: Ice_can


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.


I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.


Because you can charge whatever you like now, got something with a 75% or higer charge roll rule, congratulations you can now congaline and charge every unit in the opponents army you can touch with no overwatch bar 1 of your charge targets.
If Fall back has also become a strategum as roumered your going to have won the dang game on turn 1.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 17:20:35


Post by: Lammia


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...


Could you elaborate a bit more, please?
I can try, but I don't know how successful I'll be.

The challenge of melee in 8th is it needs to trade up to be impactful enough to make up for the loss in bodies and turn. Overwatch played little part with that(outside of a few SM cases), especially with work arounds like transport charges and other more specific Overwatch denial strategies.

Screens were the biggest problem for most melee and will continue to be so. And nobody is going to waste a CP on the meaningless shòoting of Overwatch without a very strong reason, so I don't see it actually adding any choice to the game.

As to Arcos and Repentia becoming the new 'meta' units for the Imperium (a bold claim, I know.) The loss of their 7+ armour being a risk to their charges, their easily small squad sizes and the new limiting factor on 'I just charge everything, always' mean that already very effective melee is made stronger by avoiding any of the drawbacks that other armies will have to deal with


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 17:27:52


Post by: Daedalus81


Lammia wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...


Could you elaborate a bit more, please?
I can try, but I don't know how successful I'll be.

The challenge of melee in 8th is it needs to trade up to be impactful enough to make up for the loss in bodies and turn. Overwatch played little part with that(outside of a few SM cases), especially with work arounds like transport charges and other more specific Overwatch denial strategies.

Screens were the biggest problem for most melee and will continue to be so. And nobody is going to waste a CP on the meaningless shòoting of Overwatch without a very strong reason, so I don't see it actually adding any choice to the game.

As to Arcos and Repentia becoming the new 'meta' units for the Imperium (a bold claim, I know.) The loss of their 7+ armour being a risk to their charges, their easily small squad sizes and the new limiting factor on 'I just charge everything, always' mean that already very effective melee is made stronger by avoiding any of the drawbacks that other armies will have to deal with


So the surrounding rules are unknown, but you fail *all* charges if you declare a multi-charge and don't make it to *all* declared chargees.

Rhino blockers were fine, but not guaranteed and now you can build a melee army without being forced to reserve points and CP for those units and relics.

The choice becomes apparent in decisive O/W situations. There are plenty of times I would have liked to charge a Repulsor, but I didn't have LOS blocking cover. Now, if I have a support unit I can declare with them first. If my opponents opts not to O/W they gamble them failing the charge so they can O/W my more dangerous unit. Additionally, if I bleed my opponent's CP off and he's out at the end of the game that Repulsor won't be firing anyway.

The potential consequences of the rules changes are pretty deep.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 17:37:44


Post by: the_scotsman


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.


I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.


He can't do that though. He has to get within 1" of enemy units himself if he's going to fight.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 17:54:31


Post by: yukishiro1


the_scotsman wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.


I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.


He can't do that though. He has to get within 1" of enemy units himself if he's going to fight.


Right...and that's imminently possible to do. If they don't base your guy on their charge, you just move around him to get within 1" that way. The point is this makes it extremely easy to abuse heroic interventions to create situations where a charging unit cannot fight against a unit you heroic into them.

Doesn't even have to be a character, lots of factions get strats that let units heroic too, usually at 6" distance to boot. If they don't change the rule, it will be trivially easy for many factions to set up situations where whole units get to fight against a charging unit that the charging unit cannot fight itself.

It would be such a disaster that I have to hope that the playtesters flagged it and the fact that the rule is changing means that the rule about only being able to fight units you charged is changing too. At the very least, it would need to be changed to say you can fight any unit you charged OR any unit that heroically intervened closer to you in response to your charge.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 17:58:39


Post by: the_scotsman


yukishiro1 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.


I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.


He can't do that though. He has to get within 1" of enemy units himself if he's going to fight.


Right...and that's imminently possible to do. If they don't base your guy on their charge, you just move around him to get within 1" that way. The point is this makes it extremely easy to abuse heroic interventions to create situations where a charging unit cannot fight against a unit you heroic into them.

Doesn't even have to be a character, lots of factions get strats that let units heroic too, usually at 6" distance to boot. If they don't change the rule, it will be trivially easy for many factions to set up situations where whole units get to fight against a charging unit that the charging unit fight itself.


true. Hopefully the rule gets changed with the new restrictions. I'd really like to not have to turn into white lady standing in front of calculus meme every time I declare a charge roll with one of my units.

Also, I'd love for engagement range to be like unit coherency when it comes to terrain: 1" over, 6" up. Just charge in to terrain and instead of having to reach your big sausage fingers in to the ruin building and try to poke models around with your tape measure, just be able to go "Ok, they're in there and now they can fight."


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:21:52


Post by: Lammia


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Lammia wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...


Could you elaborate a bit more, please?
I can try, but I don't know how successful I'll be.

The challenge of melee in 8th is it needs to trade up to be impactful enough to make up for the loss in bodies and turn. Overwatch played little part with that(outside of a few SM cases), especially with work arounds like transport charges and other more specific Overwatch denial strategies.

Screens were the biggest problem for most melee and will continue to be so. And nobody is going to waste a CP on the meaningless shòoting of Overwatch without a very strong reason, so I don't see it actually adding any choice to the game.

As to Arcos and Repentia becoming the new 'meta' units for the Imperium (a bold claim, I know.) The loss of their 7+ armour being a risk to their charges, their easily small squad sizes and the new limiting factor on 'I just charge everything, always' mean that already very effective melee is made stronger by avoiding any of the drawbacks that other armies will have to deal with


So the surrounding rules are unknown, but you fail *all* charges if you declare a multi-charge and don't make it to *all* declared chargees.

Rhino blockers were fine, but not guaranteed and now you can build a melee army without being forced to reserve points and CP for those units and relics.

The choice becomes apparent in decisive O/W situations. There are plenty of times I would have liked to charge a Repulsor, but I didn't have LOS blocking cover. Now, if I have a support unit I can declare with them first. If my opponents opts not to O/W they gamble them failing the charge so they can O/W my more dangerous unit. Additionally, if I bleed my opponent's CP off and he's out at the end of the game that Repulsor won't be firing anyway.

The potential consequences of the rules changes are pretty deep.
Perhaps, but I expect it to end up as so called shallow complexity.

Higher starting CP + the regeneration means that I don't know expect the drain to be enough, but that may depend on other things.

Repentia also have a known charge roll once per turn from miracle dice and maybe rerolls for others. Making them quite reliable, while others are out in the cold.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:28:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Now that they've said you can only successfully charge if you hit ALL your targets, they should add the following:

"A unit in melee can hit any enemy units within Engagement Range when it is chosen to fight."

That's simple, intuitive, and would deny weird situations where because it was YOUR turn when the enemy counter-charged, you can't hurt them, but if you'd stuck your thumb in your bum and waited, then you COULD strike them in their own turn.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:31:39


Post by: yukishiro1


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Now that they've said you can only successfully charge if you hit ALL your targets, they should add the following:

"A unit in melee can hit any enemy units within Engagement Range when it is chosen to fight."

That's simple, intuitive, and would deny weird situations where because it was YOUR turn when the enemy counter-charged, you can't hurt them, but if you'd stuck your thumb in your bum and waited, then you COULD strike them in their own turn.


That would be ok, I guess. Still a pretty significant nerf to melee because it makes it trivially easy to screen out units you don't want charged, but at least those units wouldn't be able to fight back using heroic intervention abuse while being unable to be targeted. So they'd have to choose between protecting them or fighting, not get both.

I am down on GW for being morons a lot of the time, but even I have a hard time believing they could be so epically stupid as to keep the "you can only fight units you charged" rule intact while moving to this new multi-charge rule limitation.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:34:15


Post by: Unit1126PLL


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Now that they've said you can only successfully charge if you hit ALL your targets, they should add the following:

"A unit in melee can hit any enemy units within Engagement Range when it is chosen to fight."

That's simple, intuitive, and would deny weird situations where because it was YOUR turn when the enemy counter-charged, you can't hurt them, but if you'd stuck your thumb in your bum and waited, then you COULD strike them in their own turn.


That would be ok, I guess. Still a pretty significant nerf to melee because it makes it trivially easy to screen out units you don't want charged, but at least those units wouldn't be able to fight back using heroic intervention abuse while being unable to be targeted. So they'd have to choose between protecting them or fighting, not get both.

I am down on GW for being morons a lot of the time, but even I have a hard time believing they could be so epically stupid as to keep the "you can only fight units you charged" rule intact while moving to this new multi-charge rule limitation.


Well, we'll see how they change melee. It is still trivially easy to screen out units you don't want charged, but that should imho be part of the game - melee needs *some* counterplay. If fall back becomes a stratagem - or there is a fight twice stratagem (with all the extra movement that entails!) or they make Consolidates and Pile-Ins somehow related to movement stat (say, divided by 2 or something) or they let units re-charge after an enemy falls back from them...


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:40:13


Post by: Aash


They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:42:37


Post by: the_scotsman


Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?


I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:44:26


Post by: Unit1126PLL


the_scotsman wrote:
Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?


I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.


True. Now, in 9th (if they don't change anything*), the charging unit is forced not to fight the substantially more threatening Captain while he chops them all in half. That's way more sensible!

*personally, I think they'll change something.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:45:04


Post by: yukishiro1


HI is necessary because they split characters off from units. If you do that, you have to have HI or characters become too easily avoidable in melee.

On the charge thing, all they'd have to do is remove the stupid restriction on only being able to fight stuff you charged in the first place. Allow a charging unit to fight anything they declared a charge against, OR anything they are within 1" of when chosen to activate, just like normal units can fight anything they're within 1" of when chosen to activate. Charging should increase the amount of stuff you are allowed to fight, not limit it.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:46:43


Post by: the_scotsman


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?


I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.


True. Now, in 9th (if they don't change anything*), the charging unit is forced not to fight the substantially more threatening Captain while he chops them all in half. That's way more sensible!

*personally, I think they'll change something.


...unless they declare him as a target of the charge, obv.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:49:27


Post by: yukishiro1


the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?


I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.


True. Now, in 9th (if they don't change anything*), the charging unit is forced not to fight the substantially more threatening Captain while he chops them all in half. That's way more sensible!

*personally, I think they'll change something.


...unless they declare him as a target of the charge, obv.


Which will guarantee their charge fails, because unless they have fly, it's probably very easy to position him so that they need more than a 12" charge to get to him, making it impossible to do so. Unless they're starting the charge from literally like 2" out.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 18:58:22


Post by: Unit1126PLL


the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?


I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.


True. Now, in 9th (if they don't change anything*), the charging unit is forced not to fight the substantially more threatening Captain while he chops them all in half. That's way more sensible!

*personally, I think they'll change something.


...unless they declare him as a target of the charge, obv.


You could surround him with the 10 marine squad such that he can squeeze within an inch during Heroic Intervention, but the charging unit cannot get to within 1" of him (remember, he gets to move after they do). This means he cannot be a target of the charge, or the charge automatically fails in 9th edition.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 19:20:02


Post by: Daedalus81


Lammia wrote:

Higher starting CP + the regeneration means that I don't know expect the drain to be enough, but that may depend on other things.


I don't think it will quite that much CP.

Take marines -- their current lists use 3 detachments. Often for CP generation and then allied marines to specialize. Some go mono, but they often carry 4+ HQs.

We still don't know how everything will shape up, but it could look something like this:

-3 CP, Second Battalion
-2 CP, Chapter Master
-1 CP, Extra Trait
-1 CP, Extra Relic
-1 CP, Other Pre-game Strat
-2 CP, Duty Eternal twice (or Tremor Shells & Suppression once)

Most of the meat of a game happens in the first 3 turns. That means 5 CP is left. Are they going to want to O/W a couple times? -2CP. Will they need any damage rerolls? Is Fallback a strat?

Sure you can regen, but that will likely still be one per turn.
Bobby gives 3CP, but he's a super heavy. What will that detachment cost be? Is he the WL, because that means no refund on the Battalion.
Tigurius gives 2CP, but then you're fixing your army to UM. Are successors allies? They seem to be.

Or maybe the list building changes so much that we see singular detachments more. It's hard to say.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 19:37:15


Post by: aphyon




Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*


That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.



Ice_can wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.


I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.


I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.


Because you can charge whatever you like now, got something with a 75% or higer charge roll rule, congratulations you can now congaline and charge every unit in the opponents army you can touch with no overwatch bar 1 of your charge targets.
If Fall back has also become a strategum as roumered your going to have won the dang game on turn 1.


Honestly the conga-line was still a problem in 8th in the sense you could charge and consolidate towards any enemy unit(in any direction), not the ones you were currently engaging in CC. the old rules were far better you had to charge the first model in a straight line directly at the enemy unit once in B2B all other models had to charge that same unit to get as close as possible(but not in a straight line). it still allowed for multi-charge but only if both charged units were basically right next to each other.. then consolidation had to be closer to the unit currently in CC with it.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 19:53:19


Post by: Insectum7


 aphyon wrote:


Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*


That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

For several editions, all models in a unit used their grenades in CC which made perfect sense, (So Orks could be S4 with Frag Stikkbombs), and hitting the rear armor of a tank just represented planting grenades in weak points, etc. It was great.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 19:53:26


Post by: yukishiro1


It will also allow for major abuse of base sizes. If the charging unit is 32mm bases and your screen is 25mm, for example, you can set them up 30mm from one another and then your 25mm character can heroic between them while being impossible to charge with the 32mm base models, despite being only an inch or so back.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 20:10:54


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Insectum7 wrote:
Spoiler:
 aphyon wrote:


Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*


That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

For several editions, all models in a unit used their grenades in CC which made perfect sense, (So Orks could be S4 with Frag Stikkbombs), and hitting the rear armor of a tank just represented planting grenades in weak points, etc. It was great.

Yes, it was. Hope they bring it back. Don't understand why they removed it in the first place.

Of course if they do bring it back, csm want our melta bombs back.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/18 20:14:45


Post by: aphyon


 Insectum7 wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*


That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

For several editions, all models in a unit used their grenades in CC which made perfect sense, (So Orks could be S4 with Frag Stikkbombs), and hitting the rear armor of a tank just represented planting grenades in weak points, etc. It was great.


I am fine with hitting rear armor is you are actually able to get to it to hit it, that's actually playing the game tactically. hitting rear armor just 'cause is not acceptable

I am also fine with every member in a unit using their grenades. they paid for them in points afterall. in fact in our house rules that rule is still in effect. it gives things like tau firewarriors the chance to be able to deal with armor (EMP grenades) while not being able to carry any heavy weapons for the same purpose.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/19 03:06:51


Post by: RaptorusRex


 aphyon wrote:


Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*


That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.


Re: 3, armor literally does not matter in a universe with power fields as a thing.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/19 05:20:05


Post by: jeff white


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Things with unequal access to anti-tank weapons is sensible. You shouldn't say "well, because Space Marines have Krak Grenades, guardsmen should be able to wound tanks with bayonets." Which is how that argument sounds.

For the genestealer example, here's a few assumptions that may help:
1) Tanks are harder to grab onto than terminators to exert force (given that they're somewhat larger and the armor panels are slabs rather than attached to limbs, etc).
2) Tank armor is different in composition to Terminator armor (one gives a 5++ and is based on a system to operate inside a plasma reactor, the other may be any number of different metals and thicknesses).
3) Tank armor is generally thicker than terminator armor, and the weakspots are less present (armpits, elbows, necks - the primary weakspots on a tank are not as weak as those).


Let's be honest - you're likely biased, because you enjoy taking gakloads of big tanks and you'd prefer to benefit from the invulnerability.

We no longer have facings or weak points to exploit. Wounding on 6s rounds off the hard edges and makes it a little more equitable. It wouldn't exactly be fair for your big guns to murderlate blobs of infantry and then let you cackle as they're unable to hurt you anyway.



Yeah, war is fair. Right... ever see the end of Saving Private Ryan? Moreober, this is not a card game where everone has access to the same cards. You choose a faction and get different units to choose from. Not every faction has everything. And not everything should be able to hurt everything else. That is snowflaky... but then again so is screaming that its not fair that your pistol cannot hurt your opponent's tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*


That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.


Re: 3, armor literally does not matter in a universe with power fields as a thing.


What should matter then? The viability of your model collection?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/19 05:46:35


Post by: Insectum7


 aphyon wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*


That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

For several editions, all models in a unit used their grenades in CC which made perfect sense, (So Orks could be S4 with Frag Stikkbombs), and hitting the rear armor of a tank just represented planting grenades in weak points, etc. It was great.


I am fine with hitting rear armor is you are actually able to get to it to hit it, that's actually playing the game tactically. hitting rear armor just 'cause is not acceptable
It wasn't 'just cause', it was specifically a combination of infantry finding weak points, and the fact that the assault phase meant a whole swirl of action.

And it was good balance. Lots of tanks had ferocious firepower, and were often totally invulnerable to small arms, unlike today. A Plasma Gun couldn't do a thing to a Leman Russ from the front. The flipside was that infantry could wreck a vehicle in cc with some reasonable equipment. And if they couldn't or didn't, the vehicle could just move through them like they weren't even there, and fire at whatever it wanted.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/19 06:28:07


Post by: aphyon


It wasn't 'just cause', it was specifically a combination of infantry finding weak points, and the fact that the assault phase meant a whole swirl of action.


A poor excuse for implementation of a bad rule. back the HBMCs point AT weapons for close quarters combat carried by infantry exist and have existed in the game, creating a rule that REMOVES tactical play because one guy at GW thought it would be cool is a terrible direction to take the game.,

And it was good balance. Lots of tanks had ferocious firepower, and were often totally invulnerable to small arms, unlike today. A Plasma Gun couldn't do a thing to a Leman Russ from the front. The flipside was that infantry could wreck a vehicle in cc with some reasonable equipment. And if they couldn't or didn't, the vehicle could just move through them like they weren't even there, and fire at whatever it wanted.


Illogical balance- small arms should not be able to hurt a tank from the front, nor should infantry without the proper equipment be able to impede a tank in assault....its a FRIGGIN TANK! it is the nature of a working rule set for a tactical war game. you don't send the unit not equipped for AT work after heavy armor.

This is all about tactical play on the table, not about some kind of change to the game mechanic that removes tactical play for unreasonable claims of "balance". when the thing you need is already available in the game.

DUST does a fine job of this and they used a wound system long before 8th ed. however it is also separated by armor classes(not facings). light guns can hurt light vehicles but beyond a certain point the armor is to heavy to hurt with small arms. an exception is made for fire. it hurts everything equally.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 08:44:00


Post by: babelfish


I have to jump in on the tanks vs melee argument.

The choice to allow everything to wound everything is a game balance one, to discourage skew lists. Gameplay wise it rarely matters, because situations were you shoot small arms at tanks normally means you have lost. Occasionally you get situations were infantry weapons finish off a mostly dead monster or tank, and it is suitably epic.

This is better than the alternative, because situations where players cannot do anything are bad game design.

In real life, tanks hate getting in close with infantry. Armor doctrine is to avoid close quarters and urban situations unless operating in conjunction with supporting infantry. Tanks are mobile and very killy, but have poor situational awareness and cannot clear and hold the way infantry can.

In real combat, the risk is someone with an rpg/atgm hiding in some rubble and punching a hole in your side as you drive past. Hand grenades/molotovs are less of a threat, but still not fun to get hit with, and anything down to a bowling ball sized rock going in the wrong place can cause a thrown track, which is a mobility kill until you get out of the tank and fix it.

In real combat, people don't attack with chainsaw swords that can saw a hatch open, or alien razor claws that can shred an engine driven by a six foot monstrosity that will happily plunge its arms into your engine block so that your pistons seize on it's shredded flesh.

Point being, I feel that everything can wound everything is a reasonable abstraction for this game to use to represent the vulnerability of armor to close infantry.

Side note, an uparmored 113 is a horrible example to use. 113's are armored personnel carriers, with the armored part mostly being a joke. They have an aluminum skin which is suitable for stopping AK fire and not much else. Even with an uparmor kit and an auto cannon it is not a tank, it is a deathtrap on treads. Source: drove 113's.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 09:17:18


Post by: ERJAK


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Lammia wrote:

Higher starting CP + the regeneration means that I don't know expect the drain to be enough, but that may depend on other things.


I don't think it will quite that much CP.

Take marines -- their current lists use 3 detachments. Often for CP generation and then allied marines to specialize. Some go mono, but they often carry 4+ HQs.

We still don't know how everything will shape up, but it could look something like this:

-3 CP, Second Battalion
-2 CP, Chapter Master
-1 CP, Extra Trait
-1 CP, Extra Relic
-1 CP, Other Pre-game Strat
-2 CP, Duty Eternal twice (or Tremor Shells & Suppression once)

Most of the meat of a game happens in the first 3 turns. That means 5 CP is left. Are they going to want to O/W a couple times? -2CP. Will they need any damage rerolls? Is Fallback a strat?

Sure you can regen, but that will likely still be one per turn.
Bobby gives 3CP, but he's a super heavy. What will that detachment cost be? Is he the WL, because that means no refund on the Battalion.
Tigurius gives 2CP, but then you're fixing your army to UM. Are successors allies? They seem to be.

Or maybe the list building changes so much that we see singular detachments more. It's hard to say.


You're probably never going to take a second battalion. Just throwing that out there.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 12:35:53


Post by: Ice_can


babelfish wrote:
I have to jump in on the tanks vs melee argument.

The choice to allow everything to wound everything is a game balance one, to discourage skew lists. Gameplay wise it rarely matters, because situations were you shoot small arms at tanks normally means you have lost. Occasionally you get situations were infantry weapons finish off a mostly dead monster or tank, and it is suitably epic.

This is better than the alternative, because situations where players cannot do anything are bad game design.

In real life, tanks hate getting in close with infantry. Armor doctrine is to avoid close quarters and urban situations unless operating in conjunction with supporting infantry. Tanks are mobile and very killy, but have poor situational awareness and cannot clear and hold the way infantry can.

In real combat, the risk is someone with an rpg/atgm hiding in some rubble and punching a hole in your side as you drive past. Hand grenades/molotovs are less of a threat, but still not fun to get hit with, and anything down to a bowling ball sized rock going in the wrong place can cause a thrown track, which is a mobility kill until you get out of the tank and fix it.

In real combat, people don't attack with chainsaw swords that can saw a hatch open, or alien razor claws that can shred an engine driven by a six foot monstrosity that will happily plunge its arms into your engine block so that your pistons seize on it's shredded flesh.

Point being, I feel that everything can wound everything is a reasonable abstraction for this game to use to represent the vulnerability of armor to close infantry.

Side note, an uparmored 113 is a horrible example to use. 113's are armored personnel carriers, with the armored part mostly being a joke. They have an aluminum skin which is suitable for stopping AK fire and not much else. Even with an uparmor kit and an auto cannon it is not a tank, it is a deathtrap on treads. Source: drove 113's.

It being added isnt the issue, it's toughness really doesn't matter as much as they changed the wounding chart but not Toughness values T tops at 10 on a Reaver Titan FFS, most anti infantry shooting heavy wepaons wound anything less than it on a 5+ aka 1/3 of the time add in +1 to wound and thats now 1/2 the time, then their is AP of -1 or more so you're saving at best usually 1/2 the time so your wounded with 1 in 4 hits from a weapon designed to shred light infantry.

Take the punisher Russ. Clearly an anti infantry weapon,

40 shots FFS that's isssue 1
Hitting on 3+, reroll 1's because orders
31 hits
Wounds on 5+
10 wounds
5 failed saves
The anti infantry specialists weapon just did more avarage damge than a dang anti tank weapon
It should be doing it way less effectively than it does, the issue is primarily in the wounding system.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 12:41:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Indeed. The other problem is re-rolls, which cuts the average down further. More shots with more re-rolls is better than most anti-tank options. Aggressors hosing down a Chimera are better than devs with lascannons, I think, if they have rr to hit and it wound buffs and the Aggressors are in tactical doctrine


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 13:09:07


Post by: ThePorcupine


Please don't bring realism into this. In reality a few dudes could run up to a tank, climb on top of it, and start throwing grenades into every nook and cranny.

Game - wise, if small arms fire didn't have a chance to hurt heavy armor, any time you bring lots of infantry VS a knights list you would just scoop.

The issue was never small arms fire broadly. The issue was always marines. They can stack so many rerolls and bonuses to hitting and wounding and damage that their bolters turn into anti tank weapons.

It feels like most problems with the game often boil down to "marines push this to a broken level".


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 13:12:31


Post by: Siegfriedfr


ThePorcupine wrote:
Please don't bring realism into this. In reality a few dudes could run up to a tank, climb on top of it, and start throwing grenades into every nook and cranny.

Game - wise, if small arms fire didn't have a chance to hurt heavy armor, any time you bring lots of infantry VS a knights list you would just scoop.

The issue was never small arms fire broadly. The issue was always marines. They can stack so many rerolls and bonuses to hitting and wounding and damage that their bolters turn into anti tank weapons.

It feels like most problems with the game often boil down to "marines push this to a broken level".


I wish only -AP weapon could "target" T6+ targets. And also that all strategem/modifiers that turn AP0 into AP-1/-2 (or AP -1/-2 into AP0) just disappeared.

I'm speechless when i see GW basically breaking their own game rules all the time.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 13:37:45


Post by: Ice_can


ThePorcupine wrote:
Please don't bring realism into this. In reality a few dudes could run up to a tank, climb on top of it, and start throwing grenades into every nook and cranny.

Game - wise, if small arms fire didn't have a chance to hurt heavy armor, any time you bring lots of infantry VS a knights list you would just scoop.

The issue was never small arms fire broadly. The issue was always marines. They can stack so many rerolls and bonuses to hitting and wounding and damage that their bolters turn into anti tank weapons.

It feels like most problems with the game often boil down to "marines push this to a broken level".

Marines take it to a broken level yes but to stick with Guard

A Russ with a Vanquisher Cannon
Does on avarage 3.5 wounds after saves against a T7 3+ save vehical, the maths goes more in the Punishers favour vrs T8 the wounding system is broken before we even go near marines.



Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 13:52:36


Post by: Daedalus81


ERJAK wrote:


You're probably never going to take a second battalion. Just throwing that out there.


Possibly, but then that's good, too.

Either you're all Battalion, which limits HQs and other toys or in a Brigade which forces more fill-out. And then you can't do things like take Bobby or mix with the 'best of the best' for marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Siegfriedfr wrote:

I'm speechless when i see GW basically breaking their own game rules all the time.


You must be speechless all of the time!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 14:03:32


Post by: Karol


Games aren't simulations, but a bunch of heavy bolters shouldn't be better then a single lascanons in points vs tanks.
The whole D6 or D3 dmg for anti tank weapons was, in my opinion, a huge mistake. Weapons like multi meltas, lascanons should do flat damge. If a MM did 6 dmg and double or 9 at half range it would start being a formidable anti tank weapon. d3 or d6 dmg should be limited to luck or multi shot weapons, to represent a projectile doing a lucky shot . d3 damage on an assault canon or a hvy bolter make sense.

the more jack of all trades weapons like auto cannons or rocket launchers could have flat dmg too only on the lower end of the dmg spectrum. I think that would be much better for the game.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 14:18:11


Post by: Sherrypie


Ice_can wrote:

It being added isnt the issue, it's toughness really doesn't matter as much as they changed the wounding chart but not Toughness values T tops at 10 on a Warlord Titan FFS.


A Warlord titan has T 16, but please carry on


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 14:36:19


Post by: ThePorcupine


Ice_can wrote:
Vanquisher Cannon

Please lets not look at the vanquisher cannon. it's the laughing stock of every guard fan and everyone acknowledges its godawful and the worst gun in the codex except maybe the deathstrike.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 14:40:04


Post by: H.B.M.C.


If only the Vanquisher could do what it used to do and be able to swap between different shell types.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 14:45:58


Post by: Salted Diamond


ThePorcupine wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Vanquisher Cannon

Please lets not look at the vanquisher cannon. it's the laughing stock of every guard fan and everyone acknowledges its godawful and the worst gun in the codex except maybe the deathstrike.


H.B.M.C. wrote:If only the Vanquisher could do what it used to do and be able to swap between different shell types.



The problem with the Vanquisher is that back in the day of Armor value 14 and being able to 1 shot tanks is was a good viable AT gun (S8+2d6). Being able to change shell types would help some, but I feel it needs some sort of buff to help make it viable (like inflicting x2 wounds vs tanks or always max damage)


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 14:49:07


Post by: warmaster21


Karol wrote:
Games aren't simulations, but a bunch of heavy bolters shouldn't be better then a single lascanons in points vs tanks.
The whole D6 or D3 dmg for anti tank weapons was, in my opinion, a huge mistake. Weapons like multi meltas, lascanons should do flat damge. If a MM did 6 dmg and double or 9 at half range it would start being a formidable anti tank weapon. d3 or d6 dmg should be limited to luck or multi shot weapons, to represent a projectile doing a lucky shot . d3 damage on an assault canon or a hvy bolter make sense.

the more jack of all trades weapons like auto cannons or rocket launchers could have flat dmg too only on the lower end of the dmg spectrum. I think that would be much better for the game.


Hard agree, Meltaguns being my only anti-tank infantry weapon in my army definately needs buffs. I've been towing around with the idea of meltaguns having a high flat damage that decays with range like every 3 or 6 inches for melta/multi-meltas so at max range its not going to do much damage but get in close its going to shred vehicles but that would probalby be needlessly complex and lead to too many arguments over a MM difference.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 14:57:37


Post by: Karol


Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 15:03:41


Post by: JNAProductions


Karol wrote:
Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.
Because shooting sure needed the buff, right?

Make it 3 and 6, for max and half range. And if Melta is still not taken, then nerf things like Lascannons till everything is an option.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 15:05:12


Post by: Ice_can


 Sherrypie wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

It being added isnt the issue, it's toughness really doesn't matter as much as they changed the wounding chart but not Toughness values T tops at 10 on a Warlord Titan FFS.


A Warlord titan has T 16, but please carry on

Sorry your correct it's T10 for a reaver but that's still pretty pathetic you have to admit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.
Because shooting sure needed the buff, right?

Make it 3 and 6, for max and half range. And if Melta is still not taken, then nerf things like Lascannons till everything is an option.

You can nerf lascannons all yoy like but not shure what your hoping to achieve as it's not like they are taken that often anyway.
It is uaually autocannons etc that I see played.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 17:06:24


Post by: Martel732


Because the -1AP on autocannons is always useful and they can potentially klll 2 primaris, whereas lascannons are getting into invuln land with -3 AP and can only ever kill 1 primaris. And cost a lot more.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 17:11:22


Post by: JNAProductions


The point is, it's a shooting game, and it should be more balanced. The overall power of shooting should go down-and a 12 damage Melta is NOT that.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 17:11:28


Post by: Insectum7


I'd rather see Multimeltas get Blast like they did in the old days.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 17:11:48


Post by: Spoletta


Ice_can wrote:
ThePorcupine wrote:
Please don't bring realism into this. In reality a few dudes could run up to a tank, climb on top of it, and start throwing grenades into every nook and cranny.

Game - wise, if small arms fire didn't have a chance to hurt heavy armor, any time you bring lots of infantry VS a knights list you would just scoop.

The issue was never small arms fire broadly. The issue was always marines. They can stack so many rerolls and bonuses to hitting and wounding and damage that their bolters turn into anti tank weapons.

It feels like most problems with the game often boil down to "marines push this to a broken level".

Marines take it to a broken level yes but to stick with Guard

A Russ with a Vanquisher Cannon
Does on avarage 3.5 wounds after saves against a T7 3+ save vehical, the maths goes more in the Punishers favour vrs T8 the wounding system is broken before we even go near marines.



The vanquisher cannon is really bad at that job, and yet the punisher is even worse at it (3,35 wounds at any T6+ 3+ target rerolls included, your previous math is wrong). I don't see a problem with the punisher AT capabilities.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 17:26:38


Post by: Ice_can


Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
ThePorcupine wrote:
Please don't bring realism into this. In reality a few dudes could run up to a tank, climb on top of it, and start throwing grenades into every nook and cranny.

Game - wise, if small arms fire didn't have a chance to hurt heavy armor, any time you bring lots of infantry VS a knights list you would just scoop.

The issue was never small arms fire broadly. The issue was always marines. They can stack so many rerolls and bonuses to hitting and wounding and damage that their bolters turn into anti tank weapons.

It feels like most problems with the game often boil down to "marines push this to a broken level".

Marines take it to a broken level yes but to stick with Guard

A Russ with a Vanquisher Cannon
Does on avarage 3.5 wounds after saves against a T7 3+ save vehical, the maths goes more in the Punishers favour vrs T8 the wounding system is broken before we even go near marines.



The vanquisher cannon is really bad at that job, and yet the punisher is even worse at it (3,35 wounds at any T6+ 3+ target rerolls included, your previous math is wrong). I don't see a problem with the punisher AT capabilities.

Will have to where the -1 AP comes from next time I am playing that guard player then.

But the fact that it's drawing level is rediculous it shouldn't even be viable to shoot a dedicated anti infantry weapon at a tank and achieve the same or better results than anti armour weapons. It should be a last resort as shooting a vanquisher/lascannon at infantry shure isnt equally as effective.

Whats worse about this is Guard atleast got free double shooting on their weapons everyone else'sstill suck.

Because it's way to cramped a design space if it wasnt wounding everything upto T10 on a 1in 3 chance it would be a lot less objectionable.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 17:30:25


Post by: Martel732


RoF is king in 8th. Single shot weapons turn everyone into orks due to how swingy they are.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 17:59:32


Post by: Blackie


Martel732 wrote:
RoF is king in 8th. Single shot weapons turn everyone into orks due to how swingy they are.


I agree, what kills the game is RoF. Re-rolls, shooting twice abilities, easy AP buffs... they all contribute to break the game.

I'd love single weapons like lascannons and meltaguns to be more effective, but not in the actual context where shooting gets too many buffs. One of the things I like about 8th is that vehicles can't be instant killed anymore like the paper boxes they used to be. If superbuffed low-mid strenght weapons get nerfed a lot (I mean like they should lose 60-70% of their killyness) then I'd really like some single shot or blasts/templates weapons like flamers to become more deadly.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 18:59:06


Post by: Martel732


Vehicles should be instakilled by the appropriate weapons. That's the whole point of an AT gun.

This can't be resolved with invulns in the game, though.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 19:03:00


Post by: JNAProductions


Martel732 wrote:
Vehicles should be instakilled by the appropriate weapons. That's the whole point of an AT gun.

This can't be resolved with invulns in the game, though.
So shouldn't Sniper weapons instakill characters? That's the whole point of sniper weaponry, after all.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 19:12:13


Post by: ERJAK


Karol wrote:
Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.


All I'm hearing is 'don't bring vehicles EVER because meltaguns have a guaranteed instapop on anything rhino chassis or lower'. Unless you want a trooper with a meltagun to cost 150 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Vehicles should be instakilled by the appropriate weapons. That's the whole point of an AT gun.

This can't be resolved with invulns in the game, though.


This was how it was in 7th edition and it was f***ing stupid. All it means is that you never take vehicles because they end up popping like balloons. This is a bad idea and you should feel bad.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 19:18:39


Post by: Ice_can


ERJAK wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.


All I'm hearing is 'don't bring vehicles EVER because meltaguns have a guaranteed instapop on anything rhino chassis or lower'. Unless you want a trooper with a meltagun to cost 150 points.

Yes the balance is off but the concept does have some legs in the concept of Making a Melta Flat Damage 3/4 and remove the wound melarky and just make them do double damage in melta range. Would also help fix a lot of issues with Lascannons etc. If a lascannon was flat 5 or 6 damage pointing them at centurions bikers etc would be definataly worthwhile.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 19:23:52


Post by: JNAProductions


Ice_can wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.


All I'm hearing is 'don't bring vehicles EVER because meltaguns have a guaranteed instapop on anything rhino chassis or lower'. Unless you want a trooper with a meltagun to cost 150 points.

Yes the balance is off but the concept does have some legs in the concept of Making a Melta Flat Damage 3/4 and remove the wound melarky and just make them do double damage in melta range. Would also help fix a lot of issues with Lascannons etc. If a lascannon was flat 5 or 6 damage pointing them at centurions bikers etc would be definataly worthwhile.
So how much deadlier should melee get, then?

Because your'e significantly upping the lethality of shooting.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 19:28:54


Post by: Martel732


ERJAK wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.


All I'm hearing is 'don't bring vehicles EVER because meltaguns have a guaranteed instapop on anything rhino chassis or lower'. Unless you want a trooper with a meltagun to cost 150 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Vehicles should be instakilled by the appropriate weapons. That's the whole point of an AT gun.

This can't be resolved with invulns in the game, though.


This was how it was in 7th edition and it was f***ing stupid. All it means is that you never take vehicles because they end up popping like balloons. This is a bad idea and you should feel bad.


It's not a bad idea. GW just sucks at math.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 19:38:30


Post by: Ice_can


 JNAProductions wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.


All I'm hearing is 'don't bring vehicles EVER because meltaguns have a guaranteed instapop on anything rhino chassis or lower'. Unless you want a trooper with a meltagun to cost 150 points.

Yes the balance is off but the concept does have some legs in the concept of Making a Melta Flat Damage 3/4 and remove the wound melarky and just make them do double damage in melta range. Would also help fix a lot of issues with Lascannons etc. If a lascannon was flat 5 or 6 damage pointing them at centurions bikers etc would be definataly worthwhile.
So how much deadlier should melee get, then?

Because your'e significantly upping the lethality of shooting.

Not actually changing most of it as single shot weapons never see play as they aren't reliable enough due to the multiple points of single failure.
Don't see why you think this is a nerf against meleee especially not against infantry melee.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 19:39:38


Post by: JNAProductions


Ice_can wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.


All I'm hearing is 'don't bring vehicles EVER because meltaguns have a guaranteed instapop on anything rhino chassis or lower'. Unless you want a trooper with a meltagun to cost 150 points.

Yes the balance is off but the concept does have some legs in the concept of Making a Melta Flat Damage 3/4 and remove the wound melarky and just make them do double damage in melta range. Would also help fix a lot of issues with Lascannons etc. If a lascannon was flat 5 or 6 damage pointing them at centurions bikers etc would be definataly worthwhile.
So how much deadlier should melee get, then?

Because your'e significantly upping the lethality of shooting.

Not actually changing most of it as single shot weapons never see play as they aren't reliable enough due to the multiple points of single failure.
Don't see why you think this is a nerf against meleee especially not against infantry melee.
It's an upping of shooting's lethality. If you buff the unused guns to make them more powerful, shooting gets stronger. And it's already a shooting game over a mixed one.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 19:55:15


Post by: Ice_can


Remove the dang rerolls for days to reduce the lethality of shooting.

But having armies whole anti tank ability be non functional for 2 entire editions just because no-one took a step back to re-examin the issue isn't helping, it leads to more of the buckets of dice with bad odds are better than anti tank weapons with to much swing.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 20:05:03


Post by: Martel732


This is compounded by the fact that GW doesn't understand that the FIRST point of AP is the most valuable, not going from -3 to -4


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 20:05:53


Post by: Eldarain


Or just use your keyword system and have any weapon without the correct keyword be unable to wound Vehicle/Monster on better than a 6+.

One size fits all weapons are stupid and needing low shot high impact weapons to combat heavies eases the strain on lighter units that the "more mid strength bullets works against everything" weapons are causing.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 20:11:14


Post by: Martel732


Single shot weapons are:

a) unreliable because of die roll variance

b) paying for AP they frequently don't get to use

These are two separate issues, and just throwing on more rerolls just makes the high ROF weapons pull ahead further.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 20:16:42


Post by: Nurglitch


The AI/AT/AA system from Epic Armageddon worked great.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 20:25:13


Post by: Daedalus81


Martel732 wrote:


It's not a bad idea. GW just sucks at math.


Well, feel free to prove your idea with some math and points.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 20:31:39


Post by: Martel732


As soon as they pay me. Also, I don't need to prove it. It's how AT guns work in real life. Sometimes they get a one shot knockout.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 20:36:07


Post by: Daedalus81


Martel732 wrote:
As soon as they pay me. Also, I don't need to prove it. It's how AT guns work in real life. Sometimes they get a one shot knockout.


An that would inherently disincentive vehicles. Unless you can prove otherwise your idea is just...not valid.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 20:37:18


Post by: Martel732


So reality is not valid? Okay, there's no real comeback to that.

Just because the Germans had 88s, that didn't discourage allied vehicle production.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 21:16:53


Post by: Blackie


Martel732 wrote:
Single shot weapons are:

a) unreliable because of die roll variance

b) paying for AP they frequently don't get to use

These are two separate issues, and just throwing on more rerolls just makes the high ROF weapons pull ahead further.


IMHO these aren't drawbacks, it's how things should be in a dice game. It's the access to cheap/free and spammable mid strength mid AP weapons with high rate of fire that makes them unworthy, and that is what should be limited.

Single shot weapons aren't even bad, I play with lascanons and missile launchers but they are ouclassed by some insanity that allows basic troops to bypass the rapid fire limit, while getting a free AP-2 on a solid plarform and re-rolling everything or a 6 man elite squad with a points cost of 200 points to throw 140 dice with high accuracy, and example like these. I simply refuse to play primaris because they're broken and wrong on any possible level.

With orks single shot weapons are fine. Smasha gunz, KMK and traktors are all solid, rokkits and KMB are also fine. Big mek's SAG is gold, and it basically deals the damage of 1-2 lascannons. Even the crappy gunwagon if upgraded with its kustom job becomes a solid option. Most of these weapons are D3 or D6 and not single shot but with ork BS they aren't any different than an imperium unit firing a few powerful but more accurate shots. Ork anti tank options are fairly balanced because access to cheap high rate of fire mid S and mid AP weapons is very limited.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 21:33:02


Post by: ThePorcupine


Why the bloody hell are we bringing real life into a game with chainsaw swords and magical demon wizards.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 21:44:36


Post by: Martel732


ThePorcupine wrote:
Why the bloody hell are we bringing real life into a game with chainsaw swords and magical demon wizards.


Because that's a lame excuse for absurdities. There has to be some kind of frame of reference to be relatable. Bigger guns not being good at killing bigger targets is a problem independent of demon wizards and chainsaw swords.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 21:46:09


Post by: Daedalus81


Martel732 wrote:
So reality is not valid? Okay, there's no real comeback to that.

Just because the Germans had 88s, that didn't discourage allied vehicle production.




gak why dont I just launch a nuclear missile to win every game? Real life!


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 21:47:13


Post by: Martel732


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
So reality is not valid? Okay, there's no real comeback to that.

Just because the Germans had 88s, that didn't discourage allied vehicle production.




gak why dont I just launch a nuclear missile to win every game? Real life!


That's not the same thing and you know it. If low ROF weapons were this poor in practice no one in-universe would even build them.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 21:53:15


Post by: yukishiro1


The trouble is there's no way to make ROF weapons not just flat-out better within GW's D6 paradigm once you throw in rerolls and built in AP bonuses.

In other words, everything that the Space Marine codex revolves around right now.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 21:57:43


Post by: Martel732


There may be, actually. Implement a damage bonus vs vehicles and monsters based off how much you beat the to wound number by and by how badly they failed the save.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 22:06:16


Post by: Ice_can


Martel732 wrote:
There may be, actually. Implement a damage bonus vs vehicles and monsters based off how much you beat the to wound number by and by how badly they failed the save.

Vehicals would all need additional wounds handed out to counter that as they already die pretty quickly, they don't need to die faster.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 22:10:48


Post by: Martel732


Yes, I concur. That's the level granulation we would need I think.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 22:23:45


Post by: Daedalus81


Martel732 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
So reality is not valid? Okay, there's no real comeback to that.

Just because the Germans had 88s, that didn't discourage allied vehicle production.




gak why dont I just launch a nuclear missile to win every game? Real life!


That's not the same thing and you know it. If low ROF weapons were this poor in practice no one in-universe would even build them.


They're poor in practice if you go in expecting them to roll above average all the time.

No one is taking HBs to deal with vehicles outside a subset of marines, because they *aren't* good at taking on tanks.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 22:38:56


Post by: Martel732


GW isn't going to fix this more than likely, so I guess they agree with you. I'll be over here putting my 30+ models with melta in the garbage can, though.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 22:42:41


Post by: Daedalus81


Martel732 wrote:
GW isn't going to fix this more than likely, so I guess they agree with you. I'll be over here putting my 30+ models with melta in the garbage can, though.


Meltas have a reroll... I think your beef is with invulns?


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 22:45:05


Post by: Martel732


My beef is that after to hit, to wound, invuln save, and damage roll, meltas average terrible damage output. And that's after the effort of getting to 12" range. Lascannons are better due to their range, but suffer similar problems.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/21 22:50:57


Post by: aphyon


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
So reality is not valid? Okay, there's no real comeback to that.

Just because the Germans had 88s, that didn't discourage allied vehicle production.




gak why dont I just launch a nuclear missile to win every game? Real life!


Fill your guard army with death strike missiles? you would need them against orks.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/22 05:39:39


Post by: Insectum7


It only just occurred to me that the dramatic reduction in Overwatch can mean great things for my giant collection of Spore Mines.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 10:54:50


Post by: Slipspace


yukishiro1 wrote:
The trouble is there's no way to make ROF weapons not just flat-out better within GW's D6 paradigm once you throw in rerolls and built in AP bonuses.

In other words, everything that the Space Marine codex revolves around right now.


Exactly. "Shooting" isn't too lethal, it's a very specific type of shooting that has become far too prevalent in 8th that is too lethal. The way single-shot AT works confirms this. Nobody's scared of a Tau railgun, it's the ion blasters and massed missile pods they're worried about. I think the only way to fix it is at the game design stage and cap the ROF and Strength/AP of anti-personnel weapons. There's simply no need for a Storm Cannon Array to put out 20 shots, for example, or a single Aggressor to be firing 30+ shots when they stand still. That's just ridiculous. At a certain point you need to step away from this entirely linear approach to just adding up all your shots.

Sadly 9th doesn't look like it will properly address this. The only hope is there are some adjustments to how auras work to make them less effective and maybe when new Codices are worked on we'll see GW take a look at weapons with high ROFs but given some of the comments on the livestreams so far I'm not hopeful.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 11:00:57


Post by: Karol


Martel732 wrote:
My beef is that after to hit, to wound, invuln save, and damage roll, meltas average terrible damage output. And that's after the effort of getting to 12" range. Lascannons are better due to their range, but suffer similar problems.

And they get no re-rolls.

Stuff like multi meltas, lascanons and other anti tank weapons should have a flat damage stat, not a d6, and probably do extra damage to vehicle and monsters under certain conditions.

A MM could do 6dmg flat, but 12 if it hits something at half range.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 11:31:49


Post by: Spoletta


Rerolls are not part of the issue. Rerolls contribute in the same percentage to single shot and multiple shot weapons. They are actually better on single shot weapons because if makes them more reliable.

The only type of rerolls which affects them in a different way is the RR all WOUNDS, which favors low strenght weapons. That aura is no longer in SM anymore and will be even less with 9th. Tau missiles and burst cannons on the other hand wouldn't be half as scary without that reroll.

There are 2 factions that can make good use of high ROF Mid Strenght Mid AP weapons.

Tau thanks to wound rerolling.
SM thanks to bonus AP.

All marine reroll auras are not part of the issue. They make all weapons stronger, not specifically high ROF ones.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 11:39:12


Post by: aphyon


Slipspace wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The trouble is there's no way to make ROF weapons not just flat-out better within GW's D6 paradigm once you throw in rerolls and built in AP bonuses.

In other words, everything that the Space Marine codex revolves around right now.


Exactly. "Shooting" isn't too lethal, it's a very specific type of shooting that has become far too prevalent in 8th that is too lethal. The way single-shot AT works confirms this. Nobody's scared of a Tau railgun, it's the ion blasters and massed missile pods they're worried about. I think the only way to fix it is at the game design stage and cap the ROF and Strength/AP of anti-personnel weapons. There's simply no need for a Storm Cannon Array to put out 20 shots, for example, or a single Aggressor to be firing 30+ shots when they stand still. That's just ridiculous. At a certain point you need to step away from this entirely linear approach to just adding up all your shots.

Sadly 9th doesn't look like it will properly address this. The only hope is there are some adjustments to how auras work to make them less effective and maybe when new Codices are worked on we'll see GW take a look at weapons with high ROFs but given some of the comments on the livestreams so far I'm not hopeful.



So you remember when lascannons were like scary to tanks? even land raiders since they had the potential to one shot them, railguns more so.

You are right with the way the mechanic works were everything can hurt big tough multi wound models the random damage makes the massed small arms fire far more dangerous than a gun that gets 1 shot and may only do 1 damage on a poor dice roll.

from what has been released about 9th i don't see that changing.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 12:01:54


Post by: Tyel


I think its just a difficult problem to solve.

If las/melta is cheap, it makes vehicles non-viable.
If las/melta is expensive, it makes vehicles viable, but also means higher ROF guns are probably as good - and bring greater utility versus non-vehicle style targets too. Unless you make those really expensive - and then they are just bad and no one takes them.

You could go down the approach of saying give all vehicles 20+ wounds, so they are functionally immune to 1 damage weapons, and give las/melta a fixed 6 damage, but that's just going to result in highly skewed rock/paper/scissors games and I think that would be considerably worse than what you have now.

Things like Railguns/Vanquishers are just badly designed. I think they should buff them - but a weapon which does a lot of damage, but with a huge chance of doing nothing, is always going to skew more Timmy than competitive, unless you make the platform carrying it really cheap. No one is going to pay 130~ points or whatever for what amounts to a long range multimelta that you could get for about half the points elsewhere.

But the simplest solution "okay just give them multiple shots and loads of guns" (see Repulsor Executioner) just results in everything blurring into indistinguishable sea of numbers - and rather silly models.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 12:11:21


Post by: Blackie


I honestly like how anti tank weapons perform now, I wouldn't want vehicles to be paper things like in the past and at the same time even without re-rolls vehicles go down against dedicated anti tank weapons with low rate of fire.

I'd just nerf some low-mid strenght combos that a few armies can abuse, that's all. Along with removing aura's re-rolls and free shooting twice abilities and capping the shooting twice stratagems at 3CPs.

Things like the Repulsor Executioner shouldn't even exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:


Things like Railguns/Vanquishers are just badly designed. I think they should buff them - but a weapon which does a lot of damage, but with a huge chance of doing nothing, is always going to skew more Timmy than competitive, unless you make the platform carrying it really cheap. No one is going to pay 130~ points or whatever for what amounts to a long range multimelta that you could get for about half the points elsewhere.


Fits the description of the SSAG except for the part that no one is going to take it, as it's one of the most popular choices for orks at the moment. It isn't that cheap (80 points but also 1, probably 2 CPs as it wouldn't likely be the only relic in the list) but also extremely unreliable, even with the triple re-roll (hit, wound and damage). Thing is, there aren't as many alternatitves in the ork roster for that role, while SM have tons of weapons (but also units) of each type making some of them really unworthy because they have too much competition.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 12:41:49


Post by: Tyel


 Blackie wrote:
Fits the description of the SSAG except for the part that no one is going to take it, as it's one of the most popular choices for orks at the moment. It isn't that cheap (80 points but also 1, probably 2 CPs as it wouldn't likely be the only relic in the list) but also extremely unreliable, even with the triple re-roll (hit, wound and damage). Thing is, there aren't as many alternatitves in the ork roster for that role, while SM have tons of weapons (but also units) of each type making some of them really unworthy because they have too much competition.


But that's because SSAGs are good. I guess you could argue on 80 points - and it may be different in 9th - but right now that's fine for an HQ slot filler, of which you need plenty, who brings a good gun.

Dark Eldar whinging is boring - but I'd really like Archons to take blasters again, because at least they are contributing something to the game beyond being a buff bot (or, after the first, a fairly explicit tax with mediocre combat ability.)

I've never done the calculation, but various top players reckon the relic SSAG in Deathskulls is up there for being the best 80 points in the game, never mind Orks.
The regular versions are perhaps more random - but as said, you have to fill your slots with something, and after you've taken 3 weird boys your options are not great.

Obviously with (2)D6 shots, 2D6 strength, D6 damage your variance is all over the place - but D6 shots beats having 1, and if you get really lucky, you throw extra mortal wounds all over the place.

I mean I guess you'd argue you are paying for the hull/other weapon choices on a Hammerhead - but would you throw in say an average of 7 (either the relic - or two regular Big Meks) shots to have one shot but with a guaranteed strength 10? I'm pretty sure its a bad trade.
And 8th edition character protection beats having a bit of toughness and armour.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 12:57:57


Post by: Blackie


If you do the math you'll find that those 80 points (plus 1-2 CPs, never forget that) will hardly make their points back in a couple of turns unless the player rolls above average. Not even with the deatskullz re-rolls.

In the long run the SSAG is certainly rewarding, but it requires 1-2 CPs just to exist in an army that is extremely CPs hungry and in competitive games that last 2-3 turns anyway an imperium unit with Melta or other anti tank weapons can do more damage than a SSAG for the same points.

At the end of the day the average still gives you a couple hits at S7. Not very different than a couple of lascannon SM dudes, see?

People use SAG and SSAG a lot mostly because, as you also said, they need 6ish HQs and orks are extremely limited in that section, but that's all. In 9th we'll see 0-1 of these. If I was stuck to bring just 2-3 HQ in 8th I wouldn't consider the SAG (and even the SSAG) as a must take, just a legit option.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 13:34:18


Post by: Ice_can


Spoletta wrote:
Rerolls are not part of the issue. Rerolls contribute in the same percentage to single shot and multiple shot weapons. They are actually better on single shot weapons because if makes them more reliable.

The only type of rerolls which affects them in a different way is the RR all WOUNDS, which favors low strenght weapons. That aura is no longer in SM anymore and will be even less with 9th. Tau missiles and burst cannons on the other hand wouldn't be half as scary without that reroll.

There are 2 factions that can make good use of high ROF Mid Strenght Mid AP weapons.

Tau thanks to wound rerolling.
SM thanks to bonus AP.

All marine reroll auras are not part of the issue. They make all weapons stronger, not specifically high ROF ones.

What Tau wound rerolls all source are you referring to?

They get 2 reroll wounds rolls of 1 sources, on of which requires being within 6 inches.
Marines definataly have strategums to give them full rerolls on hit and wound rolls.
Eldar still have full rerolls to wound.

Your being either intentionally misleading or not understanding the reason 5 shots needing 5+ to wound vrs 1 shot at 3+to wound is better.

The chances of failure for 0 damage is way less with 5 shots that with 1 due to multiple points of failure.
With full rerolls to hit on 3+ and rerolls 1 to wound
Chance of 0 damage before saves
5 shots, 19% chance of doing 0
1 Shot, 22% chance of 0 damage
The ditribution curve for multi shot weapons is way more forgiving on avarages compaired to the huge swing that single shot damage D6 weapons have.

Thats before we get onto the joy of multiple viable targets. Shooting a lascannon at boys spam vrs a leman russ is not efficient.
Shooting Things like Gattling cannons just doesn't care what it's beeing shot at.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 13:42:09


Post by: Spoletta


Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Rerolls are not part of the issue. Rerolls contribute in the same percentage to single shot and multiple shot weapons. They are actually better on single shot weapons because if makes them more reliable.

The only type of rerolls which affects them in a different way is the RR all WOUNDS, which favors low strenght weapons. That aura is no longer in SM anymore and will be even less with 9th. Tau missiles and burst cannons on the other hand wouldn't be half as scary without that reroll.

There are 2 factions that can make good use of high ROF Mid Strenght Mid AP weapons.

Tau thanks to wound rerolling.
SM thanks to bonus AP.

All marine reroll auras are not part of the issue. They make all weapons stronger, not specifically high ROF ones.

What Tau wound rerolls all source are you referring to?

They get 2 reroll wounds rolls of 1 sources, on of which requires being within 6 inches.
Marines definataly have strategums to give them full rerolls on hit and wound rolls.
Eldar still have full rerolls to wound.

Your being either intentionally misleading or not understanding the reason 5 shots needing 5+ to wound vrs 1 shot at 3+to wound is better.

The chances of failure for 0 damage is way less with 5 shots that with 1 due to multiple points of failure.
With full rerolls to hit on 3+ and rerolls 1 to wound
Chance of 0 damage before saves
5 shots, 19% chance of doing 0
1 Shot, 22% chance of 0 damage
The ditribution curve for multi shot weapons is way more forgiving on avarages compaired to the huge swing that single shot damage D6 weapons have.

Thats before we get onto the joy of multiple viable targets. Shooting a lascannon at boys spam vrs a leman russ is not efficient.
Shooting Things like Gattling cannons just doesn't care what it's beeing shot at.


You havn't read the rest of this thread.

The point being made, and to which i'm responding, is that high ROF is better than single shot weapons due to the SM reroll aura effects.

I find it a wrong assumption due to the previously explained reasons. That was the point being discussed.

Tau have a stratagem from commander to reroll all wounds on a unit (command and control node i think).

I admit that I actually forgot about Doom for CWE.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 13:51:18


Post by: Martel732


It's also better because it doesn't drop off vs invuln saves.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 14:02:15


Post by: the_scotsman


Martel732 wrote:
It's also better because it doesn't drop off vs invuln saves.


This is the big reason. AP-1 and AP-2 weaponry is generally superior to AP-3 and AP-4 because of the large prevalence of invuln saves within 1-2 sv shifts of the base sv value (i.e. sv4+ and sv3+ units with 5++ and 4++ invulns)

It's a quirk that's not dissimilar to the T7 3+ problem, where the system of wounding itself does not create imbalance, but the fact that an enormous number of units just happen to fall at a particular point in the toughness spectrum so as to make the difference between S3 and S4 and S7 and S8 hugely important, but the difference between S6 and S7 and S9 and S10 basically meaningless.

There are also certain weapons that are geared towards fighting, for example, T4 multiwound targets, but have 0 armor piercing (Hellglaives, for example) and the vast, vast majority of T4/T5 midsize multiwound targets happen to have 3+ and 2+ saves, making those weapons inherently bad for no fault of the system in general.

It also goes in both directions. The reason basic primaris marine bodies and TEQ bodies have to be so massively, absurdly overtuned in order to perform is because there are so many weapons that happen to fall in a mid strength, good ap, flat 2 damage bracket that is perfectly ideal for destroying those units. The second you go to W3, or 3++/4++ invuln, or a 5+ FNP type ability that cuts the efficacy of those D2 instagibs, the reliability of those units massively spikes far beyond the 33% expected by upping say the wounds from 2 to 3.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 14:44:44


Post by: Daedalus81


Martel732 wrote:
It's also better because it doesn't drop off vs invuln saves.


I think you're all missing the mark here. What you're complaining about is based in poor pattern recognition, mental bias, and a way more complex set of variables.

These are weighted averages - a Quad Las Pred vs the "most borked" anti-infantry weapon out there with various reroll buffs below. You get basically two TFCs per Quad Las Pred. Those two do a stellar 1.8 damage whereas the QLP does 3.1 against T7/8 4++.

You just think the lascannon is poor, because you want to avoid those 'feels bad man' moments, but TFCs aren't shooting tanks. The things breaking vehicles are Cent fists, Haywire, Spears, Storm Cannons, Chappy TLC, Mortis Quad Las, SAG, TBs, Mek Gunz, Smash Caps, Skorp Dissie, Grav Drop Pods, etc.

Absolutely no winning lists are leaning on anti-infantry guns (barring IF, but even then not anymore) to beat vehicles.






Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 14:46:54


Post by: catbarf


 Blackie wrote:
If you do the math you'll find that those 80 points (plus 1-2 CPs, never forget that) will hardly make their points back in a couple of turns unless the player rolls above average. Not even with the deatskullz re-rolls.

In the long run the SSAG is certainly rewarding, but it requires 1-2 CPs just to exist in an army that is extremely CPs hungry and in competitive games that last 2-3 turns anyway an imperium unit with Melta or other anti tank weapons can do more damage than a SSAG for the same points.

At the end of the day the average still gives you a couple hits at S7. Not very different than a couple of lascannon SM dudes, see?

People use SAG and SSAG a lot mostly because, as you also said, they need 6ish HQs and orks are extremely limited in that section, but that's all. In 9th we'll see 0-1 of these. If I was stuck to bring just 2-3 HQ in 8th I wouldn't consider the SAG (and even the SSAG) as a must take, just a legit option.


I have a friend who runs the SSAG in Deathskulls, and I was curious about the averages, so I wrote up a simulator in Java to simulate firing under Deathskulls (one free hit, wound, and damage roll reroll). I also threw in some code to simulate having a CP to spend.

I achieved optimal results by CP re-rolling a # of shots roll of 1, CP re-rolling a Strength roll of < 4 (if not already blown on # of shots), and using the Deathskulls damage re-roll on a roll of 1-2.

Average damage:
vs T7- 8.9 wounds
vs T8- 8.0 wounds

Without CP:
vs T7- 7.4 wounds
vs T8- 6.5 wounds

Without Deathskulls, with CP:
vs T7- 5.8 wounds
vs T8- 5.1 wounds

Without Deathskulls or CP:
vs T7- 4.6 wounds
vs T8- 4.0 wounds

So basically, playing as Deathskulls and having a CP to burn on it dramatically increases its damage output. You need six Marines with lascannons to beat it on damage output against either T7 or T8 if the Ork player is spending a CP, or five lascannons to beat it without the CP reroll.

That's some strong shooting.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 14:56:52


Post by: Martel732


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's also better because it doesn't drop off vs invuln saves.


I think you're all missing the mark here. What you're complaining about is based in poor pattern recognition, mental bias, and a way more complex set of variables.

These are weighted averages - a Quad Las Pred vs the "most borked" anti-infantry weapon out there with various reroll buffs below. You get basically two TFCs per Quad Las Pred. Those two do a stellar 1.8 damage whereas the QLP does 3.1 against T7/8 4++.

You just think the lascannon is poor, because you want to avoid those 'feels bad man' moments, but TFCs aren't shooting tanks. The things breaking vehicles are Cent fists, Haywire, Spears, Storm Cannons, Chappy TLC, Mortis Quad Las, SAG, TBs, Mek Gunz, Smash Caps, Skorp Dissie, Grav Drop Pods, etc.

Absolutely no winning lists are leaning on anti-infantry guns (barring IF, but even then not anymore) to beat vehicles.






Nah, I've elevated lascannon to okayish, but still kinda gakky. These numbers are way too close, and then factor in the reverse scenario, and that's why I think low RoF weapons suck. Also, there are plenty of mid to high RoF weapons that aren't infantry guns. Like the storm cannons you just mentioned.

Bottom line;if you fire a lascannon at a 4++ 3+ target, you just lost 2 points of AP you paid for. Multiply this across multiple lascannons and it adds up fast.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 15:00:04


Post by: warmaster21


 JNAProductions wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well that is an intersting idea. Would both entice the getting close part of melta weapons, make melta guns and multi melta real options that both have good sides.

Maybe just make it half damge. MM does 12 at 12" and 6 over 12". Meltaguns do 12 at 6" and 6 at over 6". And inferno pistols would do flat damage all the time.
Because shooting sure needed the buff, right?

Make it 3 and 6, for max and half range. And if Melta is still not taken, then nerf things like Lascannons till everything is an option.


My original thoughts were 4 flat damage, decaying to 1 at max range.

As someone else mentioned in the thread, i also hard agree with AT weapons should have flat damage values instead of d6.


Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it @ 2020/06/23 15:00:32


Post by: Daedalus81


Martel732 wrote:

Nah, I've elevated lascannon to okayish, but still kinda gakky. These numbers are way too close, and then factor in the reverse scenario, and that's why I think low RoF weapons suck.


The platform durability plays a lot into it. Mortis Dreads are a way cheaper and safer way to get 4 LC shots into a list. A predator might get away with existing now that it is slightly less stressed about being tied up, but points will still matter a ton.