pff, that starweaver is better in melee than the harlequins themselves :V
16 inch movement is pretty high, but considering it's part of the army that's all about mobility and speed, that seems like a low max (outside of flyers, I'm sure they're much faster).
Edit: oh Gork and Mork, chaos vehicle could be as crazy in melee as their passengers!
Latro_ wrote: to be honest its an amazing change, thinking about all the times i'v had a transport popped and then the unit inside is limited to not charging always felt so ugh.
bones a lot of transports and armies over a bit like landraiders for one
ork truks, raiders etc... no 6" move, 6" get out then 2d6 charge anymore... effectively all those transports have lost 6" off the charge...
JohnU wrote: Now just need to know if a transport being in combat prevents passengers from disembarking.
I highly doubt it, from this statement it seems like transports are now for soaking up overwatch and have the unit inside disembark and charge in the next turn
they are generally pretty durable and can soak up the firepower of enemy units in overwatch before their potentially more fragile passengers make it in.
JohnU wrote: Now just need to know if a transport being in combat prevents passengers from disembarking.
I highly doubt it, from this statement it seems like transports are now for soaking up overwatch and have the unit inside disembark and charge in the next turn
they are generally pretty durable and can soak up the firepower of enemy units in overwatch before their potentially more fragile passengers make it in.
I think that refers to the fact that a tranport can charge the same unit as the disembarked passengers do, meaning that the transport eats the overwatch, engages the unit and then the passengers can charge in risk-free.
Especially with the wording they use:
they are generally pretty durable and can soak up the firepower of enemy units in overwatch before their potentially more fragile passengers make it in.
Luke_Prowler wrote: pff, that starweaver is better in melee than the harlequins themselves :V
You know the 8th Edition stats, special rules and point costs for Harlequins already?
The new transport rules look good to me. Would this mean then that it's possible to disembark your unit, charge with their transport (letting that take the overwatch attacks) before charging with the passengers too? You stop using overwatch once you're engaged in close combat right?
JohnU wrote: Now just need to know if a transport being in combat prevents passengers from disembarking.
I highly doubt it, from this statement it seems like transports are now for soaking up overwatch and have the unit inside disembark and charge in the next turn
they are generally pretty durable and can soak up the firepower of enemy units in overwatch before their potentially more fragile passengers make it in.
I think that refers to the fact that a tranport can charge the same unit as the disembarked passengers do, meaning that the transport eats the overwatch, engages them and then the passengers can charge in risk-free.
Especially with the wording they use:
they are generally pretty durable and can soak up the firepower of enemy units in overwatch before their potentially more fragile passengers make it in.
Yeah I actually re-read it after I posted and came to the same conclusion, I think you are right.
Future War Cultist wrote: The new transport rules look good to me. Would this mean then that it's possible to disembark your unit, charge with their transport (letting that take the overwatch attacks) before charging with the passengers too? You stop using overwatch once you're engaged in close combat right?
yep 100%
also works for shooty units vs shooty units, jump out with your meltas etc shoot up a unit then plough the transport into combat to stop the survivors shooting you next turn.
Future War Cultist wrote: The new transport rules look good to me. Would this mean then that it's possible to disembark your unit, charge with their transport (letting that take the overwatch attacks) before charging with the passengers too? You stop using overwatch once you're engaged in close combat right?
As long as the vehicle makes it I think you are right.
Luke_Prowler wrote: pff, that starweaver is better in melee than the harlequins themselves :V
You know the 8th Edition stats, special rules and point costs for Harlequins already?
They look better than their CURRENT stats, wiseacre.
For something more constructive: I wonder if having to disembark before moving the vehicle applies to open top. moving then disembarking (and charging) is one of their advantages, and that seems like an odd thing to omit.
Luke_Prowler wrote: pff, that starweaver is better in melee than the harlequins themselves :V
You know the 8th Edition stats, special rules and point costs for Harlequins already?
They look better than their CURRENT stats, wiseacre.
For something more constructive: I wonder if having to disembark before moving the vehicle applies to open top. moving then disembarking (and charging) is one of their advantages, and that seems like an odd thing to omit.
Sounds liek open toped advantage is now for missile weapons - there might be a Assault vehicle thing that allows this but no mention yet.
edit: ah they get out before it moves! bloody had to keep reading didnt i
Can't have the too easy button now. I like this, you have to think a bit more than just move transport and then unload.
That said, I never did like the charge mechanic. How come a unit can only move more than they actually can? Say a unit can only move 6" but if it charges it could move 18"? How can it triple it's movement because it rolled a 12, but it's so much slower if it doesn't charge? Units should never get free movement for charging but being slow if it doesn't charge. I wished that mechanic went a way. That would be like saying having a race and you can move faster because you beat up the guy who was in front of you but the guy in front of you isn't as fast as you because he didn't want to go back to beat you up. So you are technically faster and getting free movement.
That said, I now I can see a transport even faster, move their 16" (or what ever) assault a spore mine or something simple to get extra free movement and then either unload passengers next turn or move even further. I guess it does add a new dynamic to a game but makes Nids slower or a mechanic they can't really use since they have no "vehciles" that actually move or move really fast.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I wonder if having to disembark before moving the vehicle applies to open top. moving then disembarking (and charging) is one of their advantages, and that seems like an odd thing to omit.
It sound like now the advantage of open-topped is being able to shoot while embarked, and likely also more options on where to disembark (you'll need a much shorter charge distance when leaving a DE Raider compared to a Wave Serpent).
I'm kinda curious where this leaves drop pods. If units have to disembark before the transport moves, does that means they have to sit inside it for a full turn?
I'm kinda curious where this leaves drop pods. If units have to disembark before the transport moves, does that means they have to sit inside it for a full turn?
I am sure drop pods/Tyranid spore pod will have rules on the dataslate saying they can disembark the turn they arrive.
Yeah, I think that will be the crack with drop pods and the drawback been the unit can't disembark and THEN move, then shoot, then charge, like other units seem to be able to do with transports, they will just shoot and charge.
Front disembarking durable transports like the land raider are going to be seen a lot more in this version of the game I think.
Rhino rush will be about positioning movement and positioning the turn before I think. Especially if they are charging other units to hold them up for the squad to finish their first target and go onto their next.
I also wonder if jump pack troopers can ride in transports, then still move and charge the same amount as usual? 5 vanguard vets in a rhino, or 8 in a crusader. Sang guard even with jump packs in a crusader actually... BIG threat range if they can move and charge as usual straight out.
White scars vang vets with jump packs in a land raider that has scout moved even.
That's probably about as fragile as vehicles are going to get, too. A light vehicle with 10AV on all sides and 3HP translates to T5 and 6 wounds. Good to know.
Pods probably work similar to deep-striking, if we use the Trygon as a base:
pod must be more than 9" away from an enemy.
all models wholly withing 3" of the Pod (or simply within due to the base sizing for some Nid gribblies), but still more than 9" away from an enemy
unit can't move but can shoot/charge/dance as it sees fit.
BroodSpawn wrote: Pods probably work similar to deep-striking, if we use the Trygon as a base:
pod must be more than 9" away from an enemy.
all models wholly withing 3" of the Pod (or simply within due to the base sizing for some Nid gribblies), but still more than 9" away from an enemy
unit can't move but can shoot/charge/dance as it sees fit.
Seems logical.
Any reason we can see why vehicles with turret weapons like a Razorback or Immolator won't reverse into battle to unload troops from the back ?
BroodSpawn wrote: Pods probably work similar to deep-striking, if we use the Trygon as a base:
pod must be more than 9" away from an enemy.
all models wholly withing 3" of the Pod (or simply within due to the base sizing for some Nid gribblies), but still more than 9" away from an enemy
unit can't move but can shoot/charge/dance as it sees fit.
That. See, if you have to be 9 inches away, you're out of flamer range.
Completely removing drop flamers would be disappointing.
Robin5t wrote: That's probably about as fragile as vehicles are going to get, too. A light vehicle with 10AV on all sides and 3HP translates to T5 and 6 wounds. Good to know.
The Starweaver has 2HP at present not 3 which is a threefold increase to 6 wounds, so I'm expecting Raiders to have 8 or 9 wounds.
BroodSpawn wrote: Pods probably work similar to deep-striking, if we use the Trygon as a base:
pod must be more than 9" away from an enemy.
all models wholly withing 3" of the Pod (or simply within due to the base sizing for some Nid gribblies), but still more than 9" away from an enemy
unit can't move but can shoot/charge/dance as it sees fit.
Seems logical.
Any reason we can see why vehicles with turret weapons like a Razorback or Immolator won't reverse into battle to unload troops from the back ?
It puts the troops up front so the Razorback either cant go through them or has to go the long way around. Personally I'm considering having my DE Raiders go for a turn 1 charge with their 16"+ move (with the Starweaver having 16 the Raider could match it but given how DE are always billed as the fastest army out there I could see it getting up to 18) then 2D6 charge which could prove particularly damaging if Shock Prows and Chain Snares give close combat bonuses, then have all the Wyches/Incubi/Grotesques jump out for a mass charge turn 2.
BroodSpawn wrote: Pods probably work similar to deep-striking, if we use the Trygon as a base:
pod must be more than 9" away from an enemy.
all models wholly withing 3" of the Pod (or simply within due to the base sizing for some Nid gribblies), but still more than 9" away from an enemy
unit can't move but can shoot/charge/dance as it sees fit.
That. See, if you have to be 9 inches away, you're out of flamer range.
Completely removing drop flamers would be disappointing.
Yes, but your drop pod then becomes an area denial object instead. Would you move a unit within 8" of something with a flamer if you didn't have to?
I can't follow the logic where he's claiming warriors are more durable with the same wounds and toughness: If anything, multiple wound weapons being a thing means they're more vulnerable than now.
I think he's trying to say that without ID, it's riskier to take them out with heavy weapons as you're not guaranteed to one-shot them anymore.
edit: I don't mind Warriors still being slightly squishy if they're at least more cost-effective to field. Better movement and lower costs per model could help them a lot.
changemod wrote: I can't follow the logic where he's claiming warriors are more durable with the same wounds and toughness: If anything, multiple wound weapons being a thing means they're more vulnerable than now.
What if instant death isn't a thing? Currently if you fire a lascannon at a Warrior, and hit, unless you roll that mythical 1 to wound you've just taken it off the table. However let's say you hit, wound but roll a 1 or 2 for amount of damage (assuming unsaved, no Catalyst, etc.). That means you've not removed a 3W model from the table with 1 shot.
xttz wrote: I think he's trying to say that without ID, it's riskier to take them out with heavy weapons as you're not guaranteed to one-shot them anymore.
I feel that the chance a lascannon might roll a 1 or 2 is outweighed by in-between weapons that roll D3 blending them faster.
In practice they might well be fractionally more durable, but I honestly doubt it.
Youn wrote: Odd, I cannot see where the nid faction is out.
Tip for everyone F5'ing each day: if you have the site filtered on article tags like 'warhammer-40000' there's often a caching delay before you see it. Refreshing the main page shows the article as soon as it's posted.
Vector Strike wrote: Why do genestealers have an invul save? what's the fluff perspective of this?
The rules of a game don't need a fluff justification, and in fact in the past when that was blindly applied it resulted in a broken ass game. They have an invuln save because they are decently expensive and need to weather a bunch of shooting before they get to do their work.
changemod wrote: I can't follow the logic where he's claiming warriors are more durable with the same wounds and toughness: If anything, multiple wound weapons being a thing means they're more vulnerable than now.
In addition to what other people have been saying autocannons now wound them on 3+ not 2+. Same with plasma and multi lasers and all that.
Also I'm sorry GW berserkers are the best combat unit in the game? Meaning they're better than those genestealers? wtf dudes!? How powerful are they?!
Vector Strike wrote: Why do genestealers have an invul save? what's the fluff perspective of this?
Super fast reflexes enable them to dodge (unless of course in a bolter porn novel in which case they have the Bolt Magnet and Squishy Rules, always hit them on a 2+ and wound on a 2+ and have puny claws just like the Primer )
Good that Synapse still ignores Morale So it should
changemod wrote: I can't follow the logic where he's claiming warriors are more durable with the same wounds and toughness: If anything, multiple wound weapons being a thing means they're more vulnerable than now.
In addition to what other people have been saying autocannons now wound them on 3+ not 2+. Same with plasma and multi lasers and all that.
Also I'm sorry GW berserkers are the best combat unit in the game? Meaning they're better than those genestealers? wtf dudes!? How powerful are they?!
Base rules Bezerkers may not be, but with chain axes (probably giving plus one attack like chainswords and maybe another buff) plus whatever the hell buffs chorine gives, and unit multipliers like the patriarch gives, they could still be better than GS's.
sad that the swarmlord didn't make it under the wound limit to be un-targetable. With that exta move ability hes going to be enemy number one every game.
Interesting, genestealer rending is now effectively AP1 on 6's, which kinda blows my theory that rending is just an additional AP-1 away. Still, that's pretty crazy. Also, all genestealers are basically purestrain now - 5++ all round! About time too.
I was a little underwhelmed by those Swarmlord stats when I first saw them to be honest; 12 wounds means it can be picked out easaily, and T6 3+ is fairly squishy, as it always has been. Then I read about being able to move a unit twice in a turn and still charge, including itself. That gives the Swarmlord a potential threat range of 31"... pretty nuts. I'm not convinced it wants to be fighting a Knight in combat still due to the whole 6 damage chainsword, but it averages ~6.8 damage a turn against one, and expects to kill ~4.8 primaris marines per turn. Also, as people have noted, the Trygon - Swarmlord move - charge thing is pretty hilarious, as it means you literally cannot fail to charge wherever you can deep strike. Of course, needing to be 9" away from any enemy to deep strike at all is fairly limiting, but still.
Synapse still giving immunity to morale is huge. Of all the things to keep, that is the most impactful. It also means you MUST kill synapse, or you will never be able to deal with the hordes, which is pretty cool.
As for pyrovores being one of the most improved units, well, they'd struggle to be much worse frankly. I know, I know, they're "usable" now, but come on, they've always been pretty awful.
Shadow Walker wrote:I wonder what numer of wounds is needed for a model to have M, S, A etc. reduction table. Swarmie is W12 and Dread is W8 only.
My bet is that it's the same cut off for character targeting - 11+. Makes the most sense to me.
Actually we might not be thinking big enough with the Swarmlord's catapult ability: There are four superheavy Tyranids in existence and forge world have promised to give rules right away.
That's some impressive force multiplication if you apply it to a biotitan.
Eyjio wrote: Interesting, genestealer rending is now effectively AP1 on 6's, which kinda blows my theory that rending is just an additional AP-1 away. Still, that's pretty crazy. Also, all genestealers are basically purestrain now - 5++ all round! About time too.
I was a little underwhelmed by those Swarmlord stats when I first saw them to be honest; 12 wounds means it can be picked out easaily, and T6 3+ is fairly squishy, as it always has been. Then I read about being able to move a unit twice in a turn and still charge, including itself. That gives the Swarmlord a potential threat range of 31"... pretty nuts. I'm not convinced it wants to be fighting a Knight in combat still due to the whole 6 damage chainsword, but it averages ~6.8 damage a turn against one, and expects to kill ~4.8 primaris marines per turn. Also, as people have noted, the Trygon - Swarmlord move - charge thing is pretty hilarious, as it means you literally cannot fail to charge wherever you can deep strike. Of course, needing to be 9" away from any enemy to deep strike at all is fairly limiting, but still.
Synapse still giving immunity to morale is huge. Of all the things to keep, that is the most impactful. It also means you MUST kill synapse, or you will never be able to deal with the hordes, which is pretty cool.
As for pyrovores being one of the most improved units, well, they'd struggle to be much worse frankly. I know, I know, they're "usable" now, but come on, they've always been pretty awful.
Shadow Walker wrote:I wonder what numer of wounds is needed for a model to have M, S, A etc. reduction table. Swarmie is W12 and Dread is W8 only.
My bet is that it's the same cut off for character targeting - 11+. Makes the most sense to me.
The Swarmlord also has a 5++ at all times now, with a 4++ in combat still, I'd say he was much more survivable than previously.
Vector Strike wrote: Why do genestealers have an invul save? what's the fluff perspective of this?
The rules of a game don't need a fluff justification, and in fact in the past when that was blindly applied it resulted in a broken ass game. They have an invuln save because they are decently expensive and need to weather a bunch of shooting before they get to do their work.
Let's just say that I strongly disagree.
It seems that 8th edition will be full of these ''when you have more than 10 models you get +1 attack, more than 20 +2) rules. that's very unfortunate
To be fair about the swarmlord having over 10 wounds, it's always been in the fluff to shoot the big bugs first. They used to have posters telling guardsmen to do just this.
davou wrote: sad that the swarmlord didn't make it under the wound limit to be un-targetable. With that exta move ability hes going to be enemy number one every game.
However he will have his Look Out Sir onto Tyrant Guard, maybe still automatically as well.
to all you faithful nid players out there who have stuck to the gibblies all this time i salute you they look like they are shaping up to be a very scary faction now.
nintura wrote: To be fair about the swarmlord having over 10 wounds, it's always been in the fluff to shoot the big bugs first. They used to have posters telling guardsmen to do just this.
The swarmlord being untargetable would have been weird to say the least
davou wrote: sad that the swarmlord didn't make it under the wound limit to be un-targetable.
As he'll undoubtedly have the Monster keyword that's probably a non-issue. I can't see GW allowing things like Greater Daemons or Wraithlords to be untargetable, that rule is there to protect Infantry-sized guys.
davou wrote: sad that the swarmlord didn't make it under the wound limit to be un-targetable.
As he'll undoubtedly have the Monster keyword that's probably a non-issue. I can't see GW allowing things like Greater Daemons or Wraithlords to be untargetable, that rule is there to protect Infantry-sized guys.
Shadow Walker wrote: If the nr of W needed for a reduction table is 11+ then it would mean that Dread would not suffer reduction in performance which would be weird.
We already know that dreads don't have an asterisk anywhere in their profile.
I'm kinda curious where this leaves drop pods. If units have to disembark before the transport moves, does that means they have to sit inside it for a full turn?
I am sure drop pods/Tyranid spore pod will have rules on the dataslate saying they can disembark the turn they arrive.
They arrive at the top of the movement phase (deployment phase basically) already, so the rules would be simultaneous. No problem there.
Shadow Walker wrote: If the nr of W needed for a reduction table is 11+ then it would mean that Dread would not suffer reduction in performance which would be weird.
We already know that dreads don't have an asterisk anywhere in their profile.
They show us fragments of their choosing. Dread was shown when they talked about profiles but only later we learned about reduction tables. It is still possible that dread may have some table too.
Front disembarking durable transports like the land raider are going to be seen a lot more in this version of the game I think.
People keep saying this. There are no firing arcs or final positions that matter now. My guess is ANY transport will allow models to disembark from anywhere off the hull. Since there is no longer vehicle facing, and hence no firing arcs, it would be pointless to say units need to use a door because you would just see sideways and backwards moving transports.
I am hoping assault vehicles get a defensive rule, for example if you charge a landraider, the occupants get to pile out into combat. OR I could see assault vehicles allowing the occupants to remain embarked while the vehicle charges, then they pile out and count as charging as well if it is successful. Either or both would be fitting for something like a land raider.
Shadow Walker wrote: If the nr of W needed for a reduction table is 11+ then it would mean that Dread would not suffer reduction in performance which would be weird.
We already know that dreads don't have an asterisk anywhere in their profile.
They show us fragments of their choosing. Dread was shown when they talked about profiles but only later we learned about reduction tables. It is still possible that dread may have some table too.
Someone feel free to correct me, but I'm yet to find any AoS unit with under 10 wounds that has a damage table. I can see things like Dreads, Carnifexes and Wraithlords simply fighting as-is until zero wounds.
Front disembarking durable transports like the land raider are going to be seen a lot more in this version of the game I think.
People keep saying this. There are no firing arcs or final positions that matter now. My guess is ANY transport will allow models to disembark from anywhere off the hull. Since there is no longer vehicle facing, and hence no firing arcs, it would be pointless to say units need to use a door because you would just see sideways and backwards moving transports.
I am hoping assault vehicles get a defensive rule, for example if you charge a landraider, the occupants get to pile out into combat. OR I could see assault vehicles allowing the occupants to remain embarked while the vehicle charges, then they pile out and count as charging as well if it is successful. Either or both would be fitting for something like a land raider.
I was assuming that vehicles (and maybe Passengers on OT ones) can overwatch.
People keep saying this. There are no firing arcs or final positions that matter now. My guess is ANY transport will allow models to disembark from anywhere off the hull.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Love what I'm seeing with nids so far. The only thing I'm kinda bummed about is that Swarmlord doesn't dish out any mortal wounds.
"...Mr. Swarmlord brings the pain in combat as well. With a base of Strength of 8, 7 Attacks, hitting on a 2+, with an AP value of -3 and D6 damage a pop..."
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Love what I'm seeing with nids so far. The only thing I'm kinda bummed about is that Swarmlord doesn't dish out any mortal wounds.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Love what I'm seeing with nids so far. The only thing I'm kinda bummed about is that Swarmlord doesn't dish out any mortal wounds.
"...Mr. Swarmlord brings the pain in combat as well. With a base of Strength of 8, 7 Attacks, hitting on a 2+, with an AP value of -3 and D6 damage a pop..."
I don't think mortal wounds are required
I would have prefered D3 mortal wounds over D6. His bonesabres have forced rerolling invulerable saves in his previous incarmations, and have Instant Death, so this would be one of the few weapons that absolutely should have got Mortal Wounds
Tyranids are probably going to end up a top tier faction for sure. Unless we see something more crazy I think they have hands down the most powerful rules I've seen from any preview so far.
He is still going to watch out for HYMP Broadside teams though as well as Missle Pod Crisis suits just due to the sheer amount of firepower. If I was a nids player I would make taking those out a priority for my army. Genestealers are the next scariest thing I would target as a Tau player. Also I hope Kroot got their Str 4 back so they can do a little better at holding in melee and doing some casualties to troop nids.
I told people that the Tau retreat thing would probably be niche use and more or less useless. If a Genestealer unit gets in range of a crisis team it's going to get eviscerated instantly with no chance of retreat. I don't know why people on the internet were expecting us to suddenly be surviving melee. Dark Eldar with fly are probably not going to put up much fight either.
I'm still kind of sad about AV being gone. It doesn't matter on superlight vehicles or things like Land Raiders but for Leman Russes it really kills some tactical depth (even though anything can kill anything). Before it took some dedicated anti-tank to kill a squad of advancing Russes from the front, but if you got behind them a marine could punch one to death.
I wouldn't worry too much about Warriors being squishy, they'll be surrounded by gribblies and only really vulnerable to snipers until their battleshock-proof horde-shield is diminished.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Love what I'm seeing with nids so far. The only thing I'm kinda bummed about is that Swarmlord doesn't dish out any mortal wounds.
"...Mr. Swarmlord brings the pain in combat as well. With a base of Strength of 8, 7 Attacks, hitting on a 2+, with an AP value of -3 and D6 damage a pop..."
I don't think mortal wounds are required
I would have prefered D3 mortal wounds over D6. His bonesabres have forced rerolling invulerable saves in his previous incarmations, and have Instant Death, so this would be one of the few weapons that absolutely should have got Mortal Wounds
A machine with 7 attacks, hitting on a 2+ and with strength 8 that does D6 damage per wound, for a potential 42 wounds caused in combat, does not need to be upgraded by turning those 42 potential wounds to 21 Mortal wounds. I don't care how good the swarm lord is, he shouldn't be able to kill any of the other CC monsters in the game without some form of a fight, such as RG, a blood thirster, an avatar etc etc. It should certainly be able to vanquish any of those foes, but it shouldn't be as easy as just getting it into combat.
NivlacSupreme wrote: I'm still kind of sad about AV being gone. It doesn't matter on superlight vehicles or things like Land Raiders but for Leman Russes it really kills some tactical depth (even though anything can kill anything). Before it took some dedicated anti-tank to kill a squad of advancing Russes from the front, but if you got behind them a marine could punch one to death.
We still don't know that there won't be some sort of general "outflanking" rule where you get bonuses to damage if you can surround a unit with your own troops.
I mean there probably won't be such a rule since it might be quite difficult to pin down in text, but it could happen….
Shooty armies without open top transports or maybe fortifactions are toast, I guess GW have a lot of vehicle kits they need to shift.
Also I find it amazing that the 1st faction focus that shows a marked improvement for an army is one that a main member of the testers use, I am shocked I tell you shocked.
Especially after the Dark Eldar one amounted to we know they were a bit gak but there awesome now as they can still do what they did in previous editions.
Seems like the massive swing back to bring a majority of assault units or get kurb stomped by combo charging transports and assault units.
So to sum so far you are going to need a tran$port for every unit in your army or an exspen$ive fortifaction to hide behind.
Also while your at it don't forget to replace your minimarines with the new and improved Prima$ Re$tartes.
Shooty armies need not apply for this edition as they are literally just speed bumps. So you may as well just $tart a new army for a new edition, however remember now we are going to get a new edition every 12 months so put some cash aside for that next swinging change I mean balance pass new army.
So against a shooty army unless overwatch is at full BS and includes heavy weapons is there any reason not to just load up your transports charge down the middle dismount ram the transports stopping the opponent from doing anything and the charge the troops the following turn.
How will 2 assault armies against each other turn out?
Yeap that's his subtle bias I was telling you about. Sometimes he doesn't even realize he is doing it.
I hate they gave the Frontline guys dejour testing capability. It was often the wider ITC community and player base that made rulings on the polls not Frankie (fairly unbiased honestly) and Reece (in particular not so unbiased) writing all of them. I don't think Reece is trying to be unbiased on purpose, but he is just a very excited individual who sometimes can't take that step back to objectively look at things as well as Frankie or some of the other tournament folks. I mean for god sake he has claimed every single unit previewed is going to be awesome and amazing. That's not how math works. Preliminary math shows the space marine power axes probably going to be the meta weapon of choice.
Tau fly is useless. None of our units with fly are capale of surviving this level of assault. Also the nids will have softening firepower on the way to us as well.
Shooty armies without open top transports or maybe fortifactions are toast, I guess GW have a lot of vehicle kits they need to shift.
Also I find it amazing that the 1st faction focus that shows a marked improvement for an army is one that a main member of the testers use, I am shocked I tell you shocked.
Especially after the Dark Eldar one amounted to we know they were a bit gak but there awesome now as they can still do what they did in previous editions.
Seems like the massive swing back to bring a majority of assault units or get kurb stomped by combo charging transports and assault units.
So to sum so far you are going to need a tran$port for every unit in your army or an exspen$ive fortifaction to hide behind.
Also while your at it don't forget to replace your minimarines with the new and improved Prima$ Re$tartes.
Shooty armies need not apply for this edition as they are literally just speed bumps. So you may as well just $tart a new army for a new edition, however remember now we are going to get a new edition every 12 months so put some cash aside for that next swinging change I mean balance pass new army.
So against a shooty army unless overwatch is at full BS and includes heavy weapons is there any reason not to just load up your transports charge down the middle dismount ram the transports stopping the opponent from doing anything and the charge the troops the following turn.
How will 2 assault armies against each other turn out?
I can now see.why games only last 60-90 minutes.
Blah, blah, blah. Doom and gloom! World is ending! Just a few weeks ago we had people complaining that shooting is too good and there's no way assault would work. But here we have, more depression and negativity about something we haven't even played yet.
So you can move and shoot normally with OT vechicles - guess just the -1 for Heavy weapons
Just don't roll a 1 for the character on baord when it blows up
Hopefully, its like the Kharadron Overlords ships where you roll for all model in the transport; add up the "1" roll then allocate the wounds as you see fit.
RoninXiC wrote: 10 pages ago= CC IS WORTHLESS
Now = CC IS OVERPOWERED
I don't know if this high level of power will apply to all the assault factions. So far I think Nids are super powerful. As a Tau player I won't be able to easily inflict fear casualties on them with my ranged weapons to thin down huge swarms and they double move at crazy speeds. I got maybe a turn or two tops until they reach me and I I start flying my models off the table for all the use that rule seems to be.
Edit
Actually I thought the Tau would be pretty weak a few weeks ago. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt since some people made a few more arguments of how things could go down. Things have not gone down that way. I am back in the camp that the Tau are going to over nerfed and some melee armies like Nids over buffed.
Edit2
i think the Tau and Dark Eldar are probably going to end up some of the weaker faction this initial first year of 8th. Hopefully there is some huge thing the two player bases of these factions is missing in the considerations so that the game is as balanced as the hype claims, but every thing I see makes me doubt that.
I'm not sure how many dozens of pages back the size comparison discussions started but could someone explain to me what the 4th from last and the last 2 models are?
Are they the standard tactical marine, the newly released assault marine and newly released devestator marine?
And does anyone know where the newly released Rubric Marines would fit on this scale? Are the new Shkmet terminators as small as those shown?
RoninXiC wrote: 10 pages ago= CC IS WORTHLESS
Now = CC IS OVERPOWERED
I don't know if this high level of power will apply to all the assault factions. So far I think Nids are super powerful. As a Tau player I won't be able to easily inflict fear casualties on them with my ranged weapons to thin down huge swarms and they double move at crazy speeds. I got maybe a turn or two tops until they reach me and I I start flying my models off the table for all the use that rule seems to be.
We don't know nearly enough about the new Tau to make an informed judgement about any of this.
Shooty armies without open top transports or maybe fortifactions are toast, I guess GW have a lot of vehicle kits they need to shift.
Also I find it amazing that the 1st faction focus that shows a marked improvement for an army is one that a main member of the testers use, I am shocked I tell you shocked.
Especially after the Dark Eldar one amounted to we know they were a bit gak but there awesome now as they can still do what they did in previous editions.
Seems like the massive swing back to bring a majority of assault units or get kurb stomped by combo charging transports and assault units.
So to sum so far you are going to need a tran$port for every unit in your army or an exspen$ive fortifaction to hide behind.
Also while your at it don't forget to replace your minimarines with the new and improved Prima$ Re$tartes.
Shooty armies need not apply for this edition as they are literally just speed bumps. So you may as well just $tart a new army for a new edition, however remember now we are going to get a new edition every 12 months so put some cash aside for that next swinging change I mean balance pass new army.
So against a shooty army unless overwatch is at full BS and includes heavy weapons is there any reason not to just load up your transports charge down the middle dismount ram the transports stopping the opponent from doing anything and the charge the troops the following turn.
How will 2 assault armies against each other turn out?
I can now see.why games only last 60-90 minutes.
-Unlimited over watch
-can move and shoot heavy weapons
-IC give bubble effects and cant be picked out when standing inside of larger groups.
-universal split fire.
Yep, anything that doesent drive a tank or try to bonk you on the head is fethed
I love the hilarious amounts of knowledge people seem to have about what the metagame will be like when stuff like point values hasn't even been revealed yet
Really fun to read as people's opinions and the general consensus seems to fluctuate almost hourly but still maintain the same amount of absolutely certainty of the situation each and every time
Nvs wrote: I'm not sure how many dozens of pages back the size comparison discussions started but could someone explain to me what the 4th from last and the last 2 models are?
Are they the standard tactical marine, the newly released assault marine and newly released devestator marine?
And does anyone know where the newly released Rubric Marines would fit on this scale? Are the new Shkmet terminators as small as those shown?
They are the current marine (last from end) and a current torso with the HH terminator legs (last model) upscaled to the primaris marine. You can see the breaks in the legs and torso.
theharrower wrote: So charging a vehicle into close combat and disembarking troops next turn will be a thing. It'll just be dangerous if you lose the vehicle.
Of course what is stopping opponent from simply surrounding your rhino/whatever and then troops inside have no room to disembark and charge?
Assuming troops can even disembark from vehicle that is locked in close combat.
Vector Strike wrote: Why do genestealers have an invul save? what's the fluff perspective of this?
The rules of a game don't need a fluff justification, and in fact in the past when that was blindly applied it resulted in a broken ass game. They have an invuln save because they are decently expensive and need to weather a bunch of shooting before they get to do their work.
As if. If you want to take out fluff might just as well play with chess. You know there's no reason you cannot make things work without breaking fluff?
Now albeit you can easily fluff justify it with their super speed but claiming fluff needs not to be followed is bad logic. You can make it balanced AND fluffy so why not? Play chess if you just want abstract game without any background consideration.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Love what I'm seeing with nids so far. The only thing I'm kinda bummed about is that Swarmlord doesn't dish out any mortal wounds.
"...Mr. Swarmlord brings the pain in combat as well. With a base of Strength of 8, 7 Attacks, hitting on a 2+, with an AP value of -3 and D6 damage a pop..."
I don't think mortal wounds are required
I would have prefered D3 mortal wounds over D6. His bonesabres have forced rerolling invulerable saves in his previous incarmations, and have Instant Death, so this would be one of the few weapons that absolutely should have got Mortal Wounds
A machine with 7 attacks, hitting on a 2+ and with strength 8 that does D6 damage per wound, for a potential 42 wounds caused in combat, does not need to be upgraded by turning those 42 potential wounds to 21 Mortal wounds. I don't care how good the swarm lord is, he shouldn't be able to kill any of the other CC monsters in the game without some form of a fight, such as RG, a blood thirster, an avatar etc etc. It should certainly be able to vanquish any of those foes, but it shouldn't be as easy as just getting it into combat.
Mortal wounds seems to be something limited to psychic powers to be honest. The reaper chain sword didn't even get mortal wounds and it was a strength D weapon!
It the knight doesn't even inflict mortal wounds in CC their is no reason for the swarm lord. 8th's weapon and unit stats are a lot more granular now.
Shooty armies without open top transports or maybe fortifactions are toast, I guess GW have a lot of vehicle kits they need to shift.
Also I find it amazing that the 1st faction focus that shows a marked improvement for an army is one that a main member of the testers use, I am shocked I tell you shocked.
Especially after the Dark Eldar one amounted to we know they were a bit gak but there awesome now as they can still do what they did in previous editions.
Seems like the massive swing back to bring a majority of assault units or get kurb stomped by combo charging transports and assault units.
So to sum so far you are going to need a tran$port for every unit in your army or an exspen$ive fortifaction to hide behind.
Also while your at it don't forget to replace your minimarines with the new and improved Prima$ Re$tartes.
Shooty armies need not apply for this edition as they are literally just speed bumps. So you may as well just $tart a new army for a new edition, however remember now we are going to get a new edition every 12 months so put some cash aside for that next swinging change I mean balance pass new army.
So against a shooty army unless overwatch is at full BS and includes heavy weapons is there any reason not to just load up your transports charge down the middle dismount ram the transports stopping the opponent from doing anything and the charge the troops the following turn.
How will 2 assault armies against each other turn out?
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Love what I'm seeing with nids so far. The only thing I'm kinda bummed about is that Swarmlord doesn't dish out any mortal wounds.
Thank god. Less things do that the better chance we have game doesn't degenerate into mortal wound generation arms race. Who generates most mortal wounds per turn wins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flood wrote: I wouldn't worry too much about Warriors being squishy, they'll be surrounded by gribblies and only really vulnerable to snipers until their battleshock-proof horde-shield is diminished.
Are warriors going to be characters? If not then they likely be targeted just like you can target terminators behind tacticals.
Shooty armies without open top transports or maybe fortifactions are toast, I guess GW have a lot of vehicle kits they need to shift.
Also I find it amazing that the 1st faction focus that shows a marked improvement for an army is one that a main member of the testers use, I am shocked I tell you shocked.
Especially after the Dark Eldar one amounted to we know they were a bit gak but there awesome now as they can still do what they did in previous editions.
Seems like the massive swing back to bring a majority of assault units or get kurb stomped by combo charging transports and assault units.
So to sum so far you are going to need a tran$port for every unit in your army or an exspen$ive fortifaction to hide behind.
Also while your at it don't forget to replace your minimarines with the new and improved Prima$ Re$tartes.
Shooty armies need not apply for this edition as they are literally just speed bumps. So you may as well just $tart a new army for a new edition, however remember now we are going to get a new edition every 12 months so put some cash aside for that next swinging change I mean balance pass new army.
So against a shooty army unless overwatch is at full BS and includes heavy weapons is there any reason not to just load up your transports charge down the middle dismount ram the transports stopping the opponent from doing anything and the charge the troops the following turn.
How will 2 assault armies against each other turn out?
I can now see.why games only last 60-90 minutes.
of course it's all a cash grab why not post that to gdub's Customer service maybe they will give you a free band aid for your butthurt. Seriously flip flop whine is bad enough but back to cash grab. Ffs gw are a company they need to sell to exist. But none of this is screaming a cash grab, numarines are just gw trying to fix the fuggy scale, with out the fantasy reboot debacle, try fielding metal termies on 25mm bases next to modern plastic on 40mm bases - it's called progress.
Shooty armies without open top transports or maybe fortifactions are toast, I guess GW have a lot of vehicle kits they need to shift.
Also I find it amazing that the 1st faction focus that shows a marked improvement for an army is one that a main member of the testers use, I am shocked I tell you shocked.
Especially after the Dark Eldar one amounted to we know they were a bit gak but there awesome now as they can still do what they did in previous editions.
Seems like the massive swing back to bring a majority of assault units or get kurb stomped by combo charging transports and assault units.
So to sum so far you are going to need a tran$port for every unit in your army or an exspen$ive fortifaction to hide behind.
Also while your at it don't forget to replace your minimarines with the new and improved Prima$ Re$tartes.
Shooty armies need not apply for this edition as they are literally just speed bumps. So you may as well just $tart a new army for a new edition, however remember now we are going to get a new edition every 12 months so put some cash aside for that next swinging change I mean balance pass new army.
So against a shooty army unless overwatch is at full BS and includes heavy weapons is there any reason not to just load up your transports charge down the middle dismount ram the transports stopping the opponent from doing anything and the charge the troops the following turn.
How will 2 assault armies against each other turn out?
I can now see.why games only last 60-90 minutes.
of course it's all a cash grab why not post that to gdub's Customer service maybe they will give you a free band aid for your butthurt. Seriously flip flop whine is bad enough but back to cash grab. Ffs gw are a company they need to sell to exist. But none of this is screaming a cash grab, numarines are just gw trying to fix the fuggy scale, with out the fantasy reboot debacle, try fielding metal termies on 25mm bases next to modern plastic on 40mm bases - it's called progress.
It doesn't matter what is done, because with enough effort you can spin anything into a cash grab.
Something got nerfed? Oh, that's because they want to sell other stuff, now!
Lockark wrote: Mortal wounds seems to be something limited to psychic powers to be honest. The reaper chain sword didn't even get mortal wounds and it was a strength D weapon!
It the knight doesn't even inflict mortal wounds in CC their is no reason for the swarm lord. 8th's weapon and unit stats are a lot more granular now.
DOn't forget mandiblaster! Because obviously low level anti-infantry weapon whose point was to give advantage against infantry by taking out few foes before combat needs to be able to cause mortal wounds. Guess we can chalk that one up for eldar bonus.
As if. If you want to take out fluff might just as well play with chess. You know there's no reason you cannot make things work without breaking fluff?
Now albeit you can easily fluff justify it with their super speed but claiming fluff needs not to be followed is bad logic. You can make it balanced AND fluffy so why not? Play chess if you just want abstract game without any background consideration.
Fluff is important, but it should play second fiddle to a game that works. If the fluff needs to take a knock on he head to make sure that the game is well running, then it absolutely should. If they can make the rules in a way that is fluffy and runs well, then even better, but rules design should favor efficient well running rules. We've had ages of fluff winning out over rules, and it game very close to destroying the whole thing.
If the rules aren't as important as the fluff, then why not just treated the game like a 5 year old playing with GI-joes; or do you realize how terrible that chess argument is?
As if. If you want to take out fluff might just as well play with chess. You know there's no reason you cannot make things work without breaking fluff?
Now albeit you can easily fluff justify it with their super speed but claiming fluff needs not to be followed is bad logic. You can make it balanced AND fluffy so why not? Play chess if you just want abstract game without any background consideration.
Fluff is important, but it should play second fiddle to a game that works. If the fluff needs to take a knock on he head to make sure that the game is well running, then it absolutely should. If they can make the rules in a way that is fluffy and runs well, then even better, but rules design should favor efficient well running rules. We've had ages of fluff winning out over rules, and it game very close to destroying the whole thing.
If the rules aren't as important as the fluff, then why not just treated the game like a 5 year old playing with GI-joes; or do you realize how terrible that chess argument is?
IF you have rules that don't match the fluff AND work you have game designer that has failed in his job. Period. End of story. It's not impossible to have both of them.
There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for rules to not follow fluff except pure incompetence by the game designer. They are not mutually exclusive. Only foolish game designer would think they are.
We got bad rules because you know what? GW game designers aren't quality game designers. Also they don't play like tournament players play. They have their own different meta that means that even units tournament players know suck are actually useful. GW designers could have said screw the fluff, rules only and they would still have got just as big mess if not bigger.
Lockark wrote: Mortal wounds seems to be something limited to psychic powers to be honest. The reaper chain sword didn't even get mortal wounds and it was a strength D weapon!
It the knight doesn't even inflict mortal wounds in CC their is no reason for the swarm lord. 8th's weapon and unit stats are a lot more granular now.
DOn't forget mandiblaster! Because obviously low level anti-infantry weapon whose point was to give advantage against infantry by taking out few foes before combat needs to be able to cause mortal wounds. Guess we can chalk that one up for eldar bonus.
I'll repeat this again.
Coming from AoS let me tell you that inflicting mortal wounds has nothing to do with the strenght of a weapon. Mandiblaster inflicting mortal wounds while a reaper chainsword does not, is perfectly expected.
Mortal wounds are a mechanic used to skip the hit/wound/save step when inflicting damage with special rules, else that damage would have needed too much time to be resolved. That's it. Special rules 99% of the time will inflict damage by means of mortal wounds. Spell/powers inflict mortal wounds because you did already roll for that attack, in the form of a cast roll.
There are other ways other than mortal wounds to make an attack really powerfull, just look at the swarmlord. Mortal wounds are not there to provide powerful attacks.
Very few attacks inflict mortal wounds, and they usually represent exotic attacks. Gaze of death of the C'than shard will be one, without a doubt.
The death of a tervigon will inflict mortal wounds on the termagants.
IF you have rules that don't match the fluff AND work you have game designer that has failed in his job. Period. End of story. It's not impossible to have both of them.
There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for rules to not follow fluff except pure incompetence by the game designer. They are not mutually exclusive. Only foolish game designer would think they are.
We got bad rules because you know what? GW game designers aren't quality game designers. Also they don't play like tournament players play. They have their own different meta that means that even units tournament players know suck are actually useful. GW designers could have said screw the fluff, rules only and they would still have got just as big mess if not bigger.
No, its not impossible to have both of them, but historically we have not had both of them. We have had some good rules that were fluffy, and some good rules that werent fluffy. We've had bad rules that weren't fluffy, and some bad rules that were very fluffy. not to mention that the fluff for this game is written inconsistently by upwards of 20 seperate authors and a half dozen codex writers.
I certainly hope that the design team will progress, but I'm not about to drag them out into the street and flay their skin off with a piece of glass if they miss the mark occasionally. And if they do miss the mark, or need to implement a stop gap while they fix things, those choices SHOULD favor the rules being playable and fair.
IF you have rules that don't match the fluff AND work you have game designer that has failed in his job. Period. End of story. It's not impossible to have both of them.
There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for rules to not follow fluff except pure incompetence by the game designer. They are not mutually exclusive. Only foolish game designer would think they are.
We got bad rules because you know what? GW game designers aren't quality game designers. Also they don't play like tournament players play. They have their own different meta that means that even units tournament players know suck are actually useful. GW designers could have said screw the fluff, rules only and they would still have got just as big mess if not bigger.
Ok then we'll have them write stories that are more muted. Does that make you happy?
I mean how can Roboute still be alive when I killed him last game? They should write him out now or tone down his fluff.
Future War Cultist wrote: With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.
Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.
At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.
Future War Cultist wrote: With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.
Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.
At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.
How? You disembark, move and charge, all in your turn. How can they move out of assault range?
Future War Cultist wrote: With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.
Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.
At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.
How? You disembark, move and charge, all in your turn. How can they move out of assault range?
I'm assuming he means that the enemy will move away from the transport in their turn, as you can't move the vehicle before disembarking now.
That said, you could just move the vehicle very close to them, so that even if they do move, they can still be charged.
Future War Cultist wrote: With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.
Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.
At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.
I don't understand. You disembark from the transport at the start of your movement phase before the transport moves, then you move the unit, possibly shoot with it and then charge with them. That's much better than what we have now. It just means that you'll have to time it right.
The one thing I am dying to know is how wounds are allocated to a unit when a gun does multiple shots and multiple damage. Enlighten me if we've had it explained, I must have missed it, but this is the scenario that's confusing me.
Say we shoot a unit with the battlecannon. The stats are: RNG 72"/ Heavy D6/S 8/AP 2/ DMG D3.
So if this was AoS, we would work out the shot as follows: shoots up to 6 attacks and each does D3 damage on the unit, so a maximum of 18 wounds inflicted on the unit.
Now we know in 40k that damage does not splash over from one model to the next. So if I was shooting a unit of 1 wound models the most I could do would be 6 wounds, rather than 18.
But what if I am shooting a unit with multiple wounds (say 4 each like the Tyranid Warriors), do I need to keep applying wounds to models until they die (like in AoS) or will those 6 shots each have to be allocated to a different model?
I presume it's only one model can be wounded at a time, but that would mean rolling for Damage 1 dice at a time, wouldn't it? Say those 6 shots all wounded a unit of Tyranid Warriors, I wound't be able to just roll 6D3 because that would allow damage to splash across models. Instead I would have to roll the dice one at a time so that if I rolled a 6 (3 wounds) followed by a 4 (2 wounds) it would only do 4 wounds in total and not splash. Or am I allowed to roll 6D3 at once and then group them into neat model killing blocks (so pair a 5,6 with a 1,2 to get an even 4 wounds)? I feel like there is still a piece missing from the picture here.
Future War Cultist wrote: With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.
Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.
At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.
I don't understand. You disembark from the transport at the start of your movement phase before the transport moves, then you move the unit, possibly shoot with it and then charge with them. That's much better than what we have now. It just means that you'll have to time it right.
This, given disembarking will probably be about 6" from access points, if it's not radically changed from 7th/6th. Plus, if access points are at the back of a vehicle, I could see someone rushing up a transport and doing some sort of dramatic fishtail so the move ends with the transport's rear facing the enemy, decreasing the distance towards the intended target a couple extra inches. Not terribly sure that'd be a very orthodox move, but so far it seems like it could be possible.
KommissarKiln wrote: This, given disembarking will probably be about 6" from access points, if it's not radically changed from 7th/6th. Plus, if access points are at the back of a vehicle, I could see someone rushing up a transport and doing some sort of dramatic fishtail so the move ends with the transport's rear facing the enemy, decreasing the distance towards the intended target a couple extra inches. Not terribly sure that'd be a very orthodox move, but so far it seems like it could be possible.
That would be pretty clever (and cinematic) but I'm wondering if they'll do what the Overlords did and just have a 3" bubble around the whole vehicle for disembarking units. It would be really neat and tidy, which is what they seem to be aiming for these days.
I'm assuming he means that the enemy will move away from the transport in their turn, as you can't move the vehicle before disembarking now.
That said, you could just move the vehicle very close to them, so that even if they do move, they can still be charged.
Yes, that's what he means.
Moving the transport close enough to ensure your charge is going to happen (accounting also for random charge range) just means the enemy unit will assault your transport before you can disembark.
And being inside the transport when it dies gives your guys a one in six chance of dying. Which, as. I said, takes us back to 4th edition where the inside of a transport is the last place your assault troops will want to be.
As if. If you want to take out fluff might just as well play with chess. You know there's no reason you cannot make things work without breaking fluff?
Now albeit you can easily fluff justify it with their super speed but claiming fluff needs not to be followed is bad logic. You can make it balanced AND fluffy so why not? Play chess if you just want abstract game without any background consideration.
Fluff is important, but it should play second fiddle to a game that works. If the fluff needs to take a knock on he head to make sure that the game is well running, then it absolutely should. If they can make the rules in a way that is fluffy and runs well, then even better, but rules design should favor efficient well running rules. We've had ages of fluff winning out over rules, and it game very close to destroying the whole thing.
If the rules aren't as important as the fluff, then why not just treated the game like a 5 year old playing with GI-joes; or do you realize how terrible that chess argument is?
IF you have rules that don't match the fluff AND work you have game designer that has failed in his job. Period. End of story. It's not impossible to have both of them.
There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for rules to not follow fluff except pure incompetence by the game designer. They are not mutually exclusive. Only foolish game designer would think they are.
We got bad rules because you know what? GW game designers aren't quality game designers. Also they don't play like tournament players play. They have their own different meta that means that even units tournament players know suck are actually useful. GW designers could have said screw the fluff, rules only and they would still have got just as big mess if not bigger.
So there's no reason that seeing a space marine should be rarer than getting struck by lightning 3 times while laying in a ditch? Or that 99% of all games should be IG vs Orks or IG vs Cultists? Or that half your army just randomly decides to turn on itself everytime you fight chaos? Should we also ban people playing against each other if they both play the same chapter loyal marines? Or that GK aren't allowed to fight xenos armies and deathwatch don't fight chaos? Etc, etc,etc.
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
Bottle wrote: The one thing I am dying to know is how wounds are allocated to a unit when a gun does multiple shots and multiple damage. Enlighten me if we've had it explained, I must have missed it, but this is the scenario that's confusing me.
Say we shoot a unit with the battlecannon. The stats are: RNG 72"/ Heavy D6/S 8/AP 2/ DMG D3.
So if this was AoS, we would work out the shot as follows: shoots up to 6 attacks and each does D3 damage on the unit, so a maximum of 18 wounds inflicted on the unit.
Now we know in 40k that damage does not splash over from one model to the next. So if I was shooting a unit of 1 wound models the most I could do would be 6 wounds, rather than 18.
But what if I am shooting a unit with multiple wounds (say 4 each like the Tyranid Warriors), do I need to keep applying wounds to models until they die (like in AoS) or will those 6 shots each have to be allocated to a different model?
I presume it's only one model can be wounded at a time, but that would mean rolling for Damage 1 dice at a time, wouldn't it? Say those 6 shots all wounded a unit of Tyranid Warriors, I wound't be able to just roll 6D3 because that would allow damage to splash across models. Instead I would have to roll the dice one at a time so that if I rolled a 6 (3 wounds) followed by a 4 (2 wounds) it would only do 4 wounds in total and not splash. Or am I allowed to roll 6D3 at once and then group them into neat model killing blocks (so pair a 5,6 with a 1,2 to get an even 4 wounds)? I feel like there is still a piece missing from the picture here.
Can't wait to find out
This is actually a very good question. Maybe can you try asking them it in Facebook? I think they haven't said how that situation is resolved. Because I want too to know what happens if you shoot 6 shoots to a unit of multiwounds models. You can shoot twice to three models? One time to six models? Or maybe you can choose how to distribute the hits? I assume, has the defender choose what unit dies, then it just doesn't matter.
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
I just want to see someone model a vehicle with big beefy arms on the front quarter panels. Kind of like the spoof land raiders with wings you sometimes saw back in 5th.
Thought: I hope non-walker vehicles still don't lock into combat, because otherwise you could charge 5 rhinos into 5 shooty units and gum them up to either stay locked or fall back and surrender shooting.
Bottle wrote: The one thing I am dying to know is how wounds are allocated to a unit when a gun does multiple shots and multiple damage. Enlighten me if we've had it explained, I must have missed it, but this is the scenario that's confusing me.
Say we shoot a unit with the battlecannon. The stats are: RNG 72"/ Heavy D6/S 8/AP 2/ DMG D3.
So if this was AoS, we would work out the shot as follows: shoots up to 6 attacks and each does D3 damage on the unit, so a maximum of 18 wounds inflicted on the unit.
Now we know in 40k that damage does not splash over from one model to the next. So if I was shooting a unit of 1 wound models the most I could do would be 6 wounds, rather than 18.
But what if I am shooting a unit with multiple wounds (say 4 each like the Tyranid Warriors), do I need to keep applying wounds to models until they die (like in AoS) or will those 6 shots each have to be allocated to a different model?
I presume it's only one model can be wounded at a time, but that would mean rolling for Damage 1 dice at a time, wouldn't it? Say those 6 shots all wounded a unit of Tyranid Warriors, I wound't be able to just roll 6D3 because that would allow damage to splash across models. Instead I would have to roll the dice one at a time so that if I rolled a 6 (3 wounds) followed by a 4 (2 wounds) it would only do 4 wounds in total and not splash. Or am I allowed to roll 6D3 at once and then group them into neat model killing blocks (so pair a 5,6 with a 1,2 to get an even 4 wounds)? I feel like there is still a piece missing from the picture here.
Can't wait to find out
Each damage roll does a max of whatever the max wounds is of the unit.
So firghting termies:
Lascannon does 4 damage, 2 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 1 damage, 1 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 2 damage, 2 damage added to pool
There are now 5 wounds to distribute starting with a model of your choice and applying wounds until the model is dead.
Each damage roll does a max of whatever the max wounds is of the unit.
So firghting termies:
Lascannon does 4 damage, 2 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 1 damage, 1 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 2 damage, 2 damage added to pool
There are now 5 wounds to distribute starting with a model of your choice and applying wounds until the model is dead.
Best guess anyway.
It sounds more like it will be:
Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)
Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.
You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.
xttz wrote: I fully expect we'll see T10+ on Titans, Stompas, Hierophants, etc
Probably one of my biggest questions is "will I be able to bring my T'aunar to casual/semicasual games now?"
I tested it out once in 7th against an imperial knight list and it didn't take any wounds. As in, I'm not saying it passed all it's saves, I'm saying it never took any wounds it needed to roll a save for in the first place.
Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)
Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.
You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.
The only reason I doubt that is because you create your wound pool in AoS. Your method requires the player to interrupt each and every attack.
Yeah, this is the problem I am seeing. No one wants to have to roll damage one at a time, but the different methods yield different results so we are still waiting on clarification as to how exactly it works.
xttz wrote: I fully expect we'll see T10+ on Titans, Stompas, Hierophants, etc
I prefer the way of representing being tough with lots of Wounds. A lot of frustration from the save-stacking GMC era came because it didn't feel like you do were doing anything when you attacked them, and vehicles often had the problem where it was a crapshoot where you either blew it up instantly, or didn't do anything important. Chipping wounds off enemies and wearing them down feels like you're getting stuff done, even if it takes the same number of shots in practice. And if Instant Death is gone, it's less important to have Toughness 6+.
I'm reminded of D&D 5e moving to a model where AC was less important, and less likely to scale out of what characters or enemies could consistently hit, and towards HP being the reliable way to tank damage and resistances halving rather than deducting from damage. Same net effect, but less feelings of whiffing.
Each damage roll does a max of whatever the max wounds is of the unit.
So firghting termies:
Lascannon does 4 damage, 2 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 1 damage, 1 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 2 damage, 2 damage added to pool
There are now 5 wounds to distribute starting with a model of your choice and applying wounds until the model is dead.
Best guess anyway.
It sounds more like it will be:
Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)
Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.
You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.
Definitely this. Defender allocates damage. Damage is going to go to wounded models first and they already said there is no wounds pool. You'll just roll for damage when a model fails a save. Seems fairly straight forward to me.
Bottle wrote: Yeah, this is the problem I am seeing. No one wants to have to roll damage one at a time, but the different methods yield different results so we are still waiting on clarification as to how exactly it works.
Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll saves.
If failed save:
If you're shooting with a multi-wound weapon against 1W targets = don't roll damage, remove model.
else if shooting with a multi-wound weapon against 2+W targets = roll damage, apply wounds
else apply 1 damage.
Fairly simple really, in fact iirc old Fantasy used to do something similar
Bottle wrote: The one thing I am dying to know is how wounds are allocated to a unit when a gun does multiple shots and multiple damage. Enlighten me if we've had it explained, I must have missed it, but this is the scenario that's confusing me.
Say we shoot a unit with the battlecannon. The stats are: RNG 72"/ Heavy D6/S 8/AP 2/ DMG D3.
So if this was AoS, we would work out the shot as follows: shoots up to 6 attacks and each does D3 damage on the unit, so a maximum of 18 wounds inflicted on the unit.
Now we know in 40k that damage does not splash over from one model to the next. So if I was shooting a unit of 1 wound models the most I could do would be 6 wounds, rather than 18.
But what if I am shooting a unit with multiple wounds (say 4 each like the Tyranid Warriors), do I need to keep applying wounds to models until they die (like in AoS) or will those 6 shots each have to be allocated to a different model?
I presume it's only one model can be wounded at a time, but that would mean rolling for Damage 1 dice at a time, wouldn't it? Say those 6 shots all wounded a unit of Tyranid Warriors, I wound't be able to just roll 6D3 because that would allow damage to splash across models. Instead I would have to roll the dice one at a time so that if I rolled a 6 (3 wounds) followed by a 4 (2 wounds) it would only do 4 wounds in total and not splash. Or am I allowed to roll 6D3 at once and then group them into neat model killing blocks (so pair a 5,6 with a 1,2 to get an even 4 wounds)? I feel like there is still a piece missing from the picture here.
Can't wait to find out
First you work out how many hits, let's say three.
Then you roll to see how much damage those three hits do (let's say D6)
3 models will then take 3 D6 shots, without spilling over. The defender chooses who takes those hits, though has to start with a wounded model.
Each damage roll does a max of whatever the max wounds is of the unit.
So firghting termies:
Lascannon does 4 damage, 2 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 1 damage, 1 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 2 damage, 2 damage added to pool
There are now 5 wounds to distribute starting with a model of your choice and applying wounds until the model is dead.
Best guess anyway.
It sounds more like it will be:
Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)
Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.
You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.
Each damage roll does a max of whatever the max wounds is of the unit.
So firghting termies:
Lascannon does 4 damage, 2 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 1 damage, 1 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 2 damage, 2 damage added to pool
There are now 5 wounds to distribute starting with a model of your choice and applying wounds until the model is dead.
Best guess anyway.
It sounds more like it will be:
Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)
Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.
You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.
Definitely this. Defender allocates damage. Damage is going to go to wounded models first and they already said there is no wounds pool. You'll just roll for damage when a model fails a save. Seems fairly straight forward to me.
Have we had clarification that the defender decides in what order the damage is allocated? Otherwise what's to say the 1 damage shot is allocated before the 2 damage shot?
If a squad of 3 Tyranid Warriors has a wounded model with 1 wound remaining, I shoot it twice with lascannons and get 6 and 1 damage from each shot, can the defender then allocate the 6 damage first (wasting 5 of the wounds) and then apply the 1 damage to the next model?
Yes we have Bottle, I suggest reading through the QA summaries, and articles in OP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also you have to allocate wounds to a wounded model first, meaning your squad will either have maximum 1 wounded model, or no wounded models.
Rippy wrote: Yes we have Bottle, I suggest reading through the QA summaries, and articles in OP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also you have to allocate wounds to a wounded model first, meaning your squad will either have maximum 1 wounded model, or no wounded models.
From what I've read through, it's been confirmed that the defender allocates the wounds, but it still seems up in the air if they get to decide in which order the damage is applied.
If that's the case it does lead to hypothetical situations like this:
- Tyranid Player has 2 squads of 3 Tyranid Warriors, both have a wounded model with 1 wound remaining.
- Marine player has 2 squads with 2 lascannons both in range of either Tyranid Warrior squad.
- If the Marine player shoots 1 squad (of 2 lascannons) at each, the Tyranid player will be able to discard lots of wounds. For example if both squad's lascannons wounded and both did 6 and 1 damage, the Tyranid player would allocate both 6's to the wounded model and then the 1's to the next models in each squad.
(Totalling 2 models killed and 2 extra wounds inflicted)
- It would instead be better for the Marine player to split fire, each squad shooting one lascannon at each of the Tyranid Warrior squads. If the results are the same (6 damage and 1 damage) the first squad kills the Tyranid Warrior with 1 wound left from each squad, the second squad puts its damage onto fresh models and so kills one and puts a wound on another.
(Totalling 3 models killed and 1 wound inflicted).
In both cases the Marine player rolled exactly the same dice, but using split fire is able to circumvent the damage allocation favoring the defender and kills more models.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that this is the sort of interesting situation that can follow. I hope my example is explained clearly: 4 las cannon shots coming from 2 units - both doing 6 and 1 damage each. By using Split Fire the marine player can kill more models than just straight up shooting each enemy squad with one of his own.
Each damage roll does a max of whatever the max wounds is of the unit.
So firghting termies:
Lascannon does 4 damage, 2 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 1 damage, 1 damage added to pool
Lascannon does 2 damage, 2 damage added to pool
There are now 5 wounds to distribute starting with a model of your choice and applying wounds until the model is dead.
Best guess anyway.
It sounds more like it will be:
Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)
Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.
You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.
Definitely this. Defender allocates damage. Damage is going to go to wounded models first and they already said there is no wounds pool. You'll just roll for damage when a model fails a save. Seems fairly straight forward to me.
Have we had clarification that the defender decides in what order the damage is allocated? Otherwise what's to say the 1 damage shot is allocated before the 2 damage shot?
If a squad of 3 Tyranid Warriors has a wounded model with 1 wound remaining, I shoot it twice with lascannons and get 6 and 1 damage from each shot, can the defender then allocate the 6 damage first (wasting 5 of the wounds) and then apply the 1 damage to the next model?
See, this is wrong to me. How it should work is you roll all wounds at once into a pool, and lets say out of the possible 18 from the 3 lascannons you cause 9 damage, one roll of 5, another 3 and a 1. That means 3 terminators removed if they fail their invulnerable saves, and 3 damage are lost. It doesn't slow the game down and the lascannons still cannot kill more than 3 models. Rolling 1 at a time is so frustrating in the current game. Especially when people do it for absolutely no reason, rolling 9 3+ saves on equally equipped 1W models... A massive bug bear.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that this is the sort of interesting situation that can follow. I hope my example is explained clearly: 4 las cannon shots coming from 2 units - both doing 6 and 1 damage each. By using Split Fire the marine player can kill more models than just straight up shooting each enemy squad with one of his own.
I think the idea they are aiming for is to encourage you to shoot multi-wound weapons like Lascannons at things with 6+ wounds (vehicles / MCs etc) and use other weapons (eg multi-shot weapons) to shoot at 1 wound or few wound models. Shooting lascannons at warriors would be a "oops I have nothing else in range to aim at" thing.
See, this is wrong to me. How it should work is you roll all wounds at once into a pool, and lets say out of the possible 18 from the 3 lascannons you cause 9 damage, one roll of 5, another 3 and a 1. That means 3 terminators removed if they fail their invulnerable saves, and 3 damage are lost. It doesn't slow the game down and the lascannons still cannot kill more than 3 models. Rolling 1 at a time is so frustrating in the current game. Especially when people do it for absolutely no reason, rolling 9 3+ saves on equally equipped 1W models... A massive bug bear.
They don't want a situation where a lascannon hits one Guardsman and causes another five to die from the shock of watching their mate get vaporised, or something similar.
What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
I wounder how wound allocation will work for squadrons of leeman euss and broods of 'fex's tbh. Because some of the speculation so far does not take this into consideration.
Lockark wrote: Wound how wound allocation will work for squadrons of leeman euss and broods of 'fex's tbh. Because some of the speculation so far does not take this into consideration.
You keep hitting the wounded model until it dies, leaving one or more fully operational 'fexs or russes to keep shooting/ stabbing you with no hinderance.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that this is the sort of interesting situation that can follow. I hope my example is explained clearly: 4 las cannon shots coming from 2 units - both doing 6 and 1 damage each. By using Split Fire the marine player can kill more models than just straight up shooting each enemy squad with one of his own.
I think the idea they are aiming for is to encourage you to shoot multi-wound weapons like Lascannons at things with 6+ wounds (vehicles / MCs etc) and use other weapons (eg multi-shot weapons) to shoot at 1 wound or few wound models. Shooting lascannons at warriors would be a "oops I have nothing else in range to aim at" thing.
See, this is wrong to me. How it should work is you roll all wounds at once into a pool, and lets say out of the possible 18 from the 3 lascannons you cause 9 damage, one roll of 5, another 3 and a 1. That means 3 terminators removed if they fail their invulnerable saves, and 3 damage are lost. It doesn't slow the game down and the lascannons still cannot kill more than 3 models. Rolling 1 at a time is so frustrating in the current game. Especially when people do it for absolutely no reason, rolling 9 3+ saves on equally equipped 1W models... A massive bug bear.
They don't want a situation where a lascannon hits one Guardsman and causes another five to die from the shock of watching their mate get vaporised, or something similar.
That's not what I'm describing. A lascannon can remove a max number of 1 model per turn. In the case of guardsmen with the above, it would be 3 guardsmen removed like the 3 terminators.
What I'm explaining is the shenanigans described above where you can roll multiple damage and removed limited models due to the defender allocating damage in a way that suits them to minimise total amount of models removed.
Thoughts from someone semi experienced in Age of Sigmar with regard to how Ld is going to work in 40k.
First, it's really not the lameness it might seem for Orks. Yes, you stand to lose extra Boyz, but at the following advantage....
See, with Battleshock in AoS, and soon to be 40k, nobody ever actually wins a combat. Instead, both parties take a test at the end of the turn. So yes, you do stand to lose extra Boyz, but if you've given the enemy a good kicking, and picked a decent target, they stand to lose far more. It doesn't matter if you only pulled down a couple of Terminators through sheer weight of numbers at the cost of 8 Boyz, there's now a chance you'll send another one or two packing - and your remain Lads will still be very literally in the fight.
That's a very different thing to deal with and exploit than the current 'all or nothing' break test. Yes a given party will still be horribly punished if they botch their attacks, but it's simply not as deadly - and can mean that units like Chaos Terminators are better able to survive whiffing their attacks, as your opponent still has to do decent damage to make Battleshock a worry - which compared to Ld-1 and hope they don't catch you is a big boost, no?
And my word....Synapse is going to be filth. Until you've dealt with it, those little bugs are going to be the kings of attrition - able to hold up and see from far harder units than themselves, given enough time. So even if they're individually weaker than a Kitten's fart, they're a nasty threat that has to be dealt with at your earliest opportunity....which does risk you ignoring the big bugs until it's too late.
Make no mistake. The change from Break Test to Battleshock is a real challenge, but definitely something you'll be wanting to learn how to best exploit!
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
But if you hit with 3 weapons that can cause multiple damage each, then you have to roll each damage separately, otherwise wounds will 'spill over' in the case of multiple wound models.
Lockark wrote: Wound how wound allocation will work for squadrons of leeman euss and broods of 'fex's tbh. Because some of the speculation so far does not take this into consideration.
You keep hitting the wounded model until it dies, leaving one or more fully operational 'fexs or russes to keep shooting/ stabbing you with no hinderance.
Might make a interesting situation were people start taking one cheap/barebones one in the squadron to tank wounds 1st.
Lockark wrote: I wounder how wound allocation will work for squadrons of leeman euss and broods of 'fex's tbh. Because some of the speculation so far does not take this into consideration.
If they still exist, they'd work like any other multi wound unit. The attacker shoots at the unit of Russ, defender allocates wounds. Once 1 Russ is wounded the defender must keep allocating wounds to that Russ until it's destroyed.
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
The confusion is as follows:
I shoot with my Battlecannon at Tyranid Warriors and get 6 shots. All wounds. All saves failed. I roll for damage and get 1,2,2,3,3,3 wounds from the D3 rolls.
Does the Tyranid player get to choose the order the 1,2,2,3,3,3 get applied? And so chooses 3,3 (waste 2 wounds), 3,2 (waste 1 wound), 2,1 (resulting in 2 dead Warriors and one on a single wound remaining).
If it's the case it leads to split fire being beneficial to pick off multiple wounded models across multiple units and then split firing again from a second unit to maximise damage potential (as per my example above).
Future War Cultist wrote: With the new transport rules we're already seeing new tactics emerging. That's got to be good right.
Based on the teaser, I would expect the 'new' tactic is basically going to be a repeat of 4th edition's 'Don't use transports' strategy.
At least for assault armies, having to disembark before moving means that enemy units are just going to move out of assault range before you get a chance to charge.
With transports being able to charge to soak overwatch you may take them as mobile walls that your guys run behind instead of getting inside...
That's not what I'm describing. A lascannon can remove a max number of 1 model per turn. In the case of guardsmen with the above, it would be 3 guardsmen removed like the 3 terminators.
What I'm explaining is the shenanigans described above where you can roll multiple damage and removed limited models due to the defender allocating damage in a way that suits them to minimise total amount of models removed.
In your example though wound rolls of 5, 3 and 1 should only remove 2 Terminators and leave a third on one wound. The 5 and 3 kill a Terminator outright but the 1 wont.
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
The confusion is as follows:
I shoot with my Battlecannon at Tyranid Warriors and get 6 shots. All wounds. All saves failed. I roll for damage and get 1,2,2,3,3,3 wounds from the D3 rolls.
Does the Tyranid player get to choose the order the 1,2,2,3,3,3 get applied? And so chooses 3,3 (waste 2 wounds), 3,2 (waste 1 wound), 2,1 (resulting in 2 dead Warriors and one on a single wound remaining).
If it's the case it leads to split fire being beneficial to pick off multiple wounded models across multiple units and then split firing again from a second unit to maximise damage potential (as per my example above).
Your point is valid and we simply do not know yet. I expect the rules will be clear on it, and tbh it could go either way and not really be an issue. We shall see!
changemod wrote: Thought: I hope non-walker vehicles still don't lock into combat, because otherwise you could charge 5 rhinos into 5 shooty units and gum them up to either stay locked or fall back and surrender shooting.
The only way this could happen is if it were to be surrounded.
The only way a super heavy walker could be locked into combat seems to be surrounding them to the point they can't walk away over the sheer amount of enemies.
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
But if you hit with 3 weapons that can cause multiple damage each, then you have to roll each damage separately, otherwise wounds will 'spill over' in the case of multiple wound models.
Yeah so you roll to hit with weapon, roll a D6 for first hit, apply wounds, then roll next D6, apply wounds so on.
I always tried to use my rhinos as walls to keep the rest of my troops safe. In 7th it really doesn't work unless you bring a literal wall...and hope the opponent has nothing up high.
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
But if you hit with 3 weapons that can cause multiple damage each, then you have to roll each damage separately, otherwise wounds will 'spill over' in the case of multiple wound models.
Yeah so you roll to hit with weapon, roll a D6 for first hit, apply wounds, then roll next D6, apply wounds so on.
Unless the weapon does more than a single D6 damage, there's no particular reason to roll them separately, just to apply them separately. You could still roll them all together.
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
But if you hit with 3 weapons that can cause multiple damage each, then you have to roll each damage separately, otherwise wounds will 'spill over' in the case of multiple wound models.
Yeah so you roll to hit with weapon, roll a D6 for first hit, apply wounds, then roll next D6, apply wounds so on.
Now, the question is if you have to allocate each wound d6 to a model, or if it affects the entire squad.
If its the latter, then those random hit explosion weapons could be pretty nasty against infantry, with the battle-cannon dealing up to 18 wounds to a squad, if I remember its stat-line correctly.
If its the former, then explosives are now better at killing heavy multi-wound infantry, oddly enough, with the battlecannon only affecting at most 6 models, but potentially killing them super hard.
With transports being able to charge to soak overwatch you may take them as mobile walls that your guys run behind instead of getting inside...
Harkens back to 2nd ed, where the primary role of the rhino was to drive around ramming enemy vehicles, rather than to transport troops...
I now want to make little powerfist "bumpers" for the front of my tanks so they can punch things they ram into...
That said, depending on how things work both the mobile cover (a method I was fond of during 5th with both CSM and Repentia) and riding inside could be useful.
Plus may see exceptions given to specific vehicles or armies. Too many questions left unanswered.
Like, can I take any Imperial transport in an Imperial army list, or do they need to share a certain level of keyword?
Because if I can my Sisters just gained Land Raiders for their Repentia...
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
But if you hit with 3 weapons that can cause multiple damage each, then you have to roll each damage separately, otherwise wounds will 'spill over' in the case of multiple wound models.
Yeah so you roll to hit with weapon, roll a D6 for first hit, apply wounds, then roll next D6, apply wounds so on.
This is the least desirable solution for me. No-one wants to have to roll damage one at a time, but we need to know if you can roll them all together and who then gets to decide in which order it is applied. It's still in the dark as far as I can see on how the details of the mechanic will actually work.
With transports being able to charge to soak overwatch you may take them as mobile walls that your guys run behind instead of getting inside...
Harkens back to 2nd ed, where the primary role of the rhino was to drive around ramming enemy vehicles, rather than to transport troops...
I now want to make little powerfist "bumpers" for the front of my tanks so they can punch things they ram into...
That said, depending on how things work both the mobile cover (a method I was fond of during 5th with both CSM and Repentia) and riding inside could be useful.
Plus may see exceptions given to specific vehicles or armies. Too many questions left unanswered.
Like, can I take any Imperial transport in an Imperial army list, or do they need to share a certain level of keyword?
Because if I can my Sisters just gained Land Raiders for their Repentia...
I'm certain that they could be taken, but undoubtably what can be carried inside them will be keyword limited. I.e. "This model can transport up to 10 models with the 'astartes' keyword"
Therefore roll to hit, wound, save and damage. Apply wounds until you've applied all wounds or have removed models = to number of hits inflicted. Any remains wounds are overkill and just mean the models are extra dead.
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
But if you hit with 3 weapons that can cause multiple damage each, then you have to roll each damage separately, otherwise wounds will 'spill over' in the case of multiple wound models.
Yeah so you roll to hit with weapon, roll a D6 for first hit, apply wounds, then roll next D6, apply wounds so on.
Unless the weapon does more than a single D6 damage, there's no particular reason to roll them separately, just to apply them separately. You could still roll them all together.
This is an area where we need more info. Say you hit a squad with 5 models that have 4 wounds each with 3 d6 damage shots and roll a 1 a 2 and a 4. If you roll them all together and the defender applies the damage then you just overkill 1 of the 5 models by 3. If the attacker applies the damage then one model dieds and the next has 1 wound left.
So basically if you don't roll the dice separately or have some other way assigning damage to models you end up with weird situations sometimes.
changemod wrote: Thought: I hope non-walker vehicles still don't lock into combat, because otherwise you could charge 5 rhinos into 5 shooty units and gum them up to either stay locked or fall back and surrender shooting.
The only way this could happen is if it were to be surrounded.
The only way a super heavy walker could be locked into combat seems to be surrounding them to the point they can't walk away over the sheer amount of enemies.
That isn't even close to what I said?
Okay imagine a guard gunline.
Now imagine a marine player has five rhinos, all of which are currently empty.
If the marine player can charge those five rhinos into five different units and have them all be locked in combat, they'll need to stay there or fall back, either way losing a turn of shooting.
One thing I do wonder is if they've got rid of any concept of "bulky". Doubt they'd want to put that rule equivalent on every current bulky model, so we may see the glory of 10 man Termie squads in Land Raiders!
Azreal13 wrote: You cannot lose more models than hits inflicted.
Therefore roll to hit, wound, save and damage. Apply wounds until you've applied all wounds or have removed models = to number of hits inflicted. Any remains wounds are overkill and just mean the models are extra dead.
It's not quite as simple as that in practice and we need to know a little more. The Tyranid player has 3 Tyranid Warriors (4 wounds each) with one on a single wound remaining.
I shoot the squad with 2 lascannon shots doing 6 and 1 damage.
Does it kill 2 Tyranid Warriors, or just kill one and put a single wound on the other? (I.e. In which order are the 6 and 1 damage applied, and who gets to choose, or do we have to roll damage one at a time?).
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
But if you hit with 3 weapons that can cause multiple damage each, then you have to roll each damage separately, otherwise wounds will 'spill over' in the case of multiple wound models.
Yeah so you roll to hit with weapon, roll a D6 for first hit, apply wounds, then roll next D6, apply wounds so on.
Unless the weapon does more than a single D6 damage, there's no particular reason to roll them separately, just to apply them separately. You could still roll them all together.
This is an area where we need more info. Say you hit a squad with 5 models that have 4 wounds each with 3 d6 damage shots and roll a 1 a 2 and a 4. If you roll them all together and the defender applies the damage then you just overkill 1 of the 5 models by 3. If the attacker applies the damage then one model dieds and the next has 1 wound left.
So basically if you don't roll the dice separately or have some other way assigning damage to models you end up with weird situations sometimes.
We just don't know yet. No use really in everyone arguing about it now tbh.
changemod wrote: Thought: I hope non-walker vehicles still don't lock into combat, because otherwise you could charge 5 rhinos into 5 shooty units and gum them up to either stay locked or fall back and surrender shooting.
The only way this could happen is if it were to be surrounded.
The only way a super heavy walker could be locked into combat seems to be surrounding them to the point they can't walk away over the sheer amount of enemies.
That isn't even close to what I said?
Okay imagine a guard gunline.
Now imagine a marine player has five rhinos, all of which are currently empty.
If the marine player can charge those five rhinos into five different units and have them all be locked in combat, they'll need to stay there or fall back, either way losing a turn of shooting.
That is a devastating impact if it's possible.
A few players in my local group have picked on this as a flaw, or at least a feature that will define the style of play at tournaments. Of course we've yet to see points, terrian rules or if the rules/dataslates reveal a standard counter to such an opening move.
Azreal13 wrote: You cannot lose more models than hits inflicted.
Therefore roll to hit, wound, save and damage. Apply wounds until you've applied all wounds or have removed models = to number of hits inflicted. Any remains wounds are overkill and just mean the models are extra dead.
This is what I've gotten from everything as well. Battle Cannon, D6 shots so up to 6 models removed depending on roll.
What the issue seems to be is people not agreeing on who decides what order multiple multi-wound unsaved shots should be resolved in... but only when it comes to models that have greater than 2 but less than 6 wounds. Which seems to be Tyranids and not much else (if you're really worrying about removing multiple Russ's with a Las-Dev squad then you're going to have had to be very lucky with your rolls).
This seems to be my take on it, see if it makes sense to you: 3 Lascannons, no saves into Warriors.
Select Warrior that's taking the wounds, roll shot 1, apply wounds/remove model as needed. Repeat for shots 2 & 3. It may add all of 20-30 seconds to your turn. Woo, you don't play Deathclock in this game so 30s is negligible.
Azreal13 wrote: You cannot lose more models than hits inflicted.
Therefore roll to hit, wound, save and damage. Apply wounds until you've applied all wounds or have removed models = to number of hits inflicted. Any remains wounds are overkill and just mean the models are extra dead.
It's not quite as simple as that in practice and we need to know a little more. The Tyranid player has 3 Tyranid Warriors (4 wounds each) with one on a single wound remaining.
I shoot the squad with 2 lascannon shots doing 6 and 1 damage.
Does it kill 2 Tyranid Warriors, or just kill one and put a single wound on the other? (I.e. In which order are the 6 and 1 damage applied, and who gets to choose, or do we have to roll damage one at a time?).
It's too clunky to do anything other than total the damage and apply it, and we know from (I think) the Battle Cannon article that you can't inflict more casualties than you inflict hits, so in your example 1W guy bites it, another guy is killed and then we've removed the maximum number of casualties, so further wounds are lost.
Probably another reason not to use anti tank on less optimal targets.
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
But if you hit with 3 weapons that can cause multiple damage each, then you have to roll each damage separately, otherwise wounds will 'spill over' in the case of multiple wound models.
Yeah so you roll to hit with weapon, roll a D6 for first hit, apply wounds, then roll next D6, apply wounds so on.
Unless the weapon does more than a single D6 damage, there's no particular reason to roll them separately, just to apply them separately. You could still roll them all together.
It does make a difference though, if you roll a 6, a 1 and a 3 out of three d6s, you would apply the 1 and 3 first, then the 6 especially if the target died after only 2 out of the 6 wounds. Where as rolling them separately, being forced to take the 6 first, then the 3 next could kill a target, meaning you wound a different target after that.
I guess this part is still unknown.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We are not arguing MaxT, its discussion based on known rules.
Azreal13 wrote: You cannot lose more models than hits inflicted.
Therefore roll to hit, wound, save and damage. Apply wounds until you've applied all wounds or have removed models = to number of hits inflicted. Any remains wounds are overkill and just mean the models are extra dead.
It's not quite as simple as that in practice and we need to know a little more. The Tyranid player has 3 Tyranid Warriors (4 wounds each) with one on a single wound remaining.
I shoot the squad with 2 lascannon shots doing 6 and 1 damage.
Does it kill 2 Tyranid Warriors, or just kill one and put a single wound on the other? (I.e. In which order are the 6 and 1 damage applied, and who gets to choose, or do we have to roll damage one at a time?).
Though perhaps a little inefficient, I think the only fair way to allocate multi damage wounds to multi wound models would be in the order the damage results are rolled, 1 at a time. Hopefully nobody will be getting ridiculous quantities of high damage shots from a single unit...
Azreal13 wrote: You cannot lose more models than hits inflicted.
Therefore roll to hit, wound, save and damage. Apply wounds until you've applied all wounds or have removed models = to number of hits inflicted. Any remains wounds are overkill and just mean the models are extra dead.
It's not quite as simple as that in practice and we need to know a little more. The Tyranid player has 3 Tyranid Warriors (4 wounds each) with one on a single wound remaining.
I shoot the squad with 2 lascannon shots doing 6 and 1 damage.
Does it kill 2 Tyranid Warriors, or just kill one and put a single wound on the other? (I.e. In which order are the 6 and 1 damage applied, and who gets to choose, or do we have to roll damage one at a time?).
It's too clunky to do anything other than total the damage and apply it, and we know from (I think) the Battle Cannon article that you can't inflict more casualties than you inflict hits, so in your example 1W guy bites it, another guy is killed and then we've removed the maximum number of casualties, so further wounds are lost.
Probably another reason not to use anti tank on less optimal targets.
This seem to me the more fast, elegant and reasonable approach... I expect GW to do this. Please GW, do it like this
changemod wrote: Thought: I hope non-walker vehicles still don't lock into combat, because otherwise you could charge 5 rhinos into 5 shooty units and gum them up to either stay locked or fall back and surrender shooting.
The only way this could happen is if it were to be surrounded.
The only way a super heavy walker could be locked into combat seems to be surrounding them to the point they can't walk away over the sheer amount of enemies.
That isn't even close to what I said?
Okay imagine a guard gunline.
Now imagine a marine player has five rhinos, all of which are currently empty.
If the marine player can charge those five rhinos into five different units and have them all be locked in combat, they'll need to stay there or fall back, either way losing a turn of shooting.
That is a devastating impact if it's possible.
As far as they've stated so far, anything that's charged is locked into combat. You can even multicharge and just get close to lock further units into combat. gak you can even pile in and get MORE. Everything can retreat but at a penalty. The only exception is imperial knights and the tau stuff with "fly" so far.
A few players in my local group have picked on this as a flaw, or at least a feature that will define the style of play at tournaments. Of course we've yet to see points, terrian rules or if the rules/dataslates reveal a standard counter to such an opening move.
I very much doubt that vehicles will cause models they assault to have to forgo shooting in order to retreat away. Vehicles don't lock models into combat now,and it would obviously be a bad thing to add that effect in now.
If for some reason they did over look that, I also expect it to be corrected very quickly. Your friends would get one tournament of giggles max I think
Now imagine a marine player has five rhinos, all of which are currently empty.
If the marine player can charge those five rhinos into five different units and have them all be locked in combat, they'll need to stay there or fall back, either way losing a turn of shooting.
That is a devastating impact if it's possible.
This is awesome. Imagine Rhinos being driven down the throats of a organized gunline, breaking morale and causing chaos. Exactly what a tank shock should be!
changemod wrote: Thought: I hope non-walker vehicles still don't lock into combat, because otherwise you could charge 5 rhinos into 5 shooty units and gum them up to either stay locked or fall back and surrender shooting.
The only way this could happen is if it were to be surrounded.
The only way a super heavy walker could be locked into combat seems to be surrounding them to the point they can't walk away over the sheer amount of enemies.
That isn't even close to what I said?
Okay imagine a guard gunline.
Now imagine a marine player has five rhinos, all of which are currently empty.
If the marine player can charge those five rhinos into five different units and have them all be locked in combat, they'll need to stay there or fall back, either way losing a turn of shooting.
That is a devastating impact if it's possible.
A few players in my local group have picked on this as a flaw, or at least a feature that will define the style of play at tournaments. Of course we've yet to see points, terrian rules or if the rules/dataslates reveal a standard counter to such an opening move.
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
Azreal13 wrote: You cannot lose more models than hits inflicted.
Therefore roll to hit, wound, save and damage. Apply wounds until you've applied all wounds or have removed models = to number of hits inflicted. Any remains wounds are overkill and just mean the models are extra dead.
It's not quite as simple as that in practice and we need to know a little more. The Tyranid player has 3 Tyranid Warriors (4 wounds each) with one on a single wound remaining.
I shoot the squad with 2 lascannon shots doing 6 and 1 damage.
Does it kill 2 Tyranid Warriors, or just kill one and put a single wound on the other? (I.e. In which order are the 6 and 1 damage applied, and who gets to choose, or do we have to roll damage one at a time?).
It's too clunky to do anything other than total the damage and apply it, and we know from (I think) the Battle Cannon article that you can't inflict more casualties than you inflict hits, so in your example 1W guy bites it, another guy is killed and then we've removed the maximum number of casualties, so further wounds are lost.
Probably another reason not to use anti tank on less optimal targets.
This seem to me the more fast, elegant and reasonable approach... I expect GW to do this. Please GW, do it like this
I've got no basis for this other than my own opinion, of course, but given that we already know it's possible to generate more wounds with an attack than can be applied to the target (so there's precedent for ignoring wounds inflicted) this strikes me as the closest way to the stated aims of the rule set to deal with the issue.
Azreal13 wrote: You cannot lose more models than hits inflicted.
Therefore roll to hit, wound, save and damage. Apply wounds until you've applied all wounds or have removed models = to number of hits inflicted. Any remains wounds are overkill and just mean the models are extra dead.
It's not quite as simple as that in practice and we need to know a little more. The Tyranid player has 3 Tyranid Warriors (4 wounds each) with one on a single wound remaining.
I shoot the squad with 2 lascannon shots doing 6 and 1 damage.
Does it kill 2 Tyranid Warriors, or just kill one and put a single wound on the other? (I.e. In which order are the 6 and 1 damage applied, and who gets to choose, or do we have to roll damage one at a time?).
It's too clunky to do anything other than total the damage and apply it, and we know from (I think) the Battle Cannon article that you can't inflict more casualties than you inflict hits, so in your example 1W guy bites it, another guy is killed and then we've removed the maximum number of casualties, so further wounds are lost.
Probably another reason not to use anti tank on less optimal targets.
This seem to me the more fast, elegant and reasonable approach... I expect GW to do this. Please GW, do it like this
I also agree this is the most elegant solution and I am in favour of rules with fast resolution.
The only problem this one leads to is the terminator example mentioned above where 3 shots of 5,4 and 1 damage a piece kill 3 terminators despite the 1 damage shot not being enough - so this would mean wounds spill over within a single round of shooting which goes against GW saying that wounds won't spill over.
I think my preferred method would be the attacker deciding the order the damage is applied and the defender then allocating it. It would keep the system fast but not allow any wounds to spill over.
I very much doubt that vehicles will cause models they assault to have to forgo shooting in order to retreat away. Vehicles don't lock models into combat now,and it would obviously be a bad thing to add that effect in now.
I would reconsider that doubt, there is nothing to indicate that the mechanic will work any differently for vehicles, especially by comparing current mechanics.
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
Compared to how staggeringly useless tank-shock used to be in older editions?
I'm 100% enthused by the idea of tank shock doing actual damage, but I reiterate my point on frustration if it stun-locks units.
Can you sincerely say you'd enjoy a game where that tactic is spammed on you, cheap transports invalidating large chunks of your army entirely?
It might and should be effective at stun-locking infantry. But, those tanks will take some serious wounds in return most likely. Everything wounds on a 6+, and things like grenades will likely be effective. I think this tactic will likely be balanced in that you will only be able to do it for a turn without losing some tanks. It's too early to speculate right now.
I also agree this is the most elegant solution and I am in favour of rules with fast resolution.
The only problem this one leads to is the terminator example mentioned above where 3 shots of 5,4 and 1 damage a piece kill 3 terminators despite the 1 damage shot not being enough - so this would mean wounds spill over within a single round of shooting which goes against GW saying that wounds won't spill over.
I think my preferred method would be the attacker deciding the order the damage is applied and the defender then allocating it. It would keep the system fast but not allow any wounds to spill over.
Or even just blanket say "allocate the highest wound first, then descending number of wounds from there"
I would reconsider that doubt, there is nothing to indicate that the mechanic will work any differently for vehicles, especially by comparing current mechanics.
I'll maintain my doubt and reserve the right to eat crow when the rules drop
If spamming stun lock with fast transports was a viable tactic of breaking the game, dont you think the people who run LVO would have caught it and gak all over it to the rules team?
I also agree this is the most elegant solution and I am in favour of rules with fast resolution.
The only problem this one leads to is the terminator example mentioned above where 3 shots of 5,4 and 1 damage a piece kill 3 terminators despite the 1 damage shot not being enough - so this would mean wounds spill over within a single round of shooting which goes against GW saying that wounds won't spill over.
I think my preferred method would be the attacker deciding the order the damage is applied and the defender then allocating it. It would keep the system fast but not allow any wounds to spill over.
Or even just blanket say "allocate the highest wound first, then descending number of wounds from there"
but this is just speculating of course.
Yep, some good proper speculation
I would rather the lowest damage was applied first and then in ascending order, otherwise it would lead to constant split-firing being more optimal as per the example I posted a few pages back.
I personally hope it's just "allocate all hits first, then roll damage".
I've never been a fan of "remove as many models as possible". It always made multi wound infantry feel weak, because they were only ever as tough as an equal number of one wound infantry, except you can also get one shot by the vast majority of high power weapon. It'd be nice to see something like a nob squad take a bunch of hits, but when the dust dies down they're mostly still standing but wounded. That's the kind of moment I want to see, vs those extra wound only being useful if the unit took an odd number of wounds.
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
Compared to how staggeringly useless tank-shock used to be in older editions?
I'm no expert in tank warfare, but it seems intuitive that tanks should be able to break regiments of infantry.
In real life they try and avoid sending tanks into cities now for battle because of how vulnerable they are. Sending a tank into meat grinder territory is one of the most risky things you can do. In the open fields and areas where infantry weaponry has no chance of reaching them they are indomitable for typical motorized infantry squads who would be deployed in them. Typically quicker lighter and more expendable AFVs are sent into battle into cities to provide heavy firepower. These are sent in with infantry as a mechanized infantry division. They also usually have tank busting missiles on them as well depending on the model. Some AFV's are even being upgunned to carry tank cannons on them so they can compete with their firepower if they have to fight them, but in open engagements the tanks win the day.
So it heavily depends on where the infantry are, what type of infantry they are, and more importantly their technology level. For example the most feared gun of WW2 the on the King Tiger couldn't even dent any modern western tank if it was point point blank to it. Even more "modern" tanks just a decade or so older have trouble penetrating newer next generation tank models. Also tank models are not static anymore. The M1 Abrams has been through dozens of upgrades over its lifetime. So it all really depends. The big tank killers are aircraft and attack helicopters.
Funny thing is most modern projectiles are so potent now they are considering doing away with sloped armor since it doesn't contribute to the tanks survival anymore. Rockets use two stages to try and circumvent reactive explosive armor. Russia's new T-14 Armata is the first 5th generation tank and its going in a stealth direction as well. Now the US is considering its options for a 5th generation tank to replace the Abrams.
Tanks are not the be all and end all of warfare they used to be, but they are an important part.
I fail to see why it's so scary. Your dudes will still fight in combat - likely wounding on 5+ or 6+. You will probably be able to fling a grenade or something too, or your seargent with powerfist will destroy it himself. In fact, buying a decent weapon on your seargant (a mace or sword or something) might actually be useful for once! The transport will lock you down for one turn at most against a squad at full strength.
Transport dies, you roll a D6 for the unit inside, not each model inside, and on a 1 the entire unit dies?
So Transports are now part Battle Taxi, part Vortex grenade?
"These rules are getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian
No you aren't reading that right.
Models inside a wrecked Transport will now die on the roll of a 1. This isn’t so bad for units like Orks and Guardsmen, who were used to taking a few casualties when losing their Transport, but is going to hurt a bit more for elite units, so be sure to put valuable units in your most durable Transports, like Land Raiders and Battlewagons.
It's models. So Terminators die just as easily as Orks.
Transport dies, you roll a D6 for the unit inside, not each model inside, and on a 1 the entire unit dies?
So Transports are now part Battle Taxi, part Vortex grenade?
"These rules are getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian
The wording is ambiguous, so (as ALWAYS) it is a bit early to Doom & Gloom.
"Models inside a wrecked Transport will now die on the roll of a 1."
This could suggest that each model rolls a die, and on a 1, that model dies... or it could be read that all models roll a single d6, and on a 1, all the models die.
Both are possible, but the former seems much more likely than the latter.
Transport dies, you roll a D6 for the unit inside, not each model inside, and on a 1 the entire unit dies?
So Transports are now part Battle Taxi, part Vortex grenade?
"These rules are getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian
I'm pretty sure it works identically to the Kharadron Overlord transports. You roll a d6 for each model inside and on a 1 the model dies/takes a mortal wound.
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
Compared to how staggeringly useless tank-shock used to be in older editions?
I'm no expert in tank warfare, but it seems intuitive that tanks should be able to break regiments of infantry.
Tank Shock were rather good imo in 5th edtiion. Most people didn't know ho to use them well. You could break units and run them off the table (Even terminator units if lucky) or you could use them to squich together pesky units that were spaced 2" apart per model in to a nice bunch of template targets.
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
Compared to how staggeringly useless tank-shock used to be in older editions?
I'm no expert in tank warfare, but it seems intuitive that tanks should be able to break regiments of infantry.
Tank Shock were rather good imo in 5th edtiion. Most people didn't know ho to use them well. You could break units and run them off the table (Even terminator units if lucky) or you could use them to squich together pesky units that were spaced 2" apart per model in to a nice bunch of template targets.
In 7th it was mostly just a funny way to immobilize a rhino with a krak grenade.
I know I'm coming into this kind of late, and probably completely wrong as well, but in regards to the multi-wound weapon idea, do we know for sure that we can only have one wounded model at a time in a squad? If this isn't the case, a possible solution that I see would be as follows. Roll to hit and then to wound, roll saves, allocate unsaved wounds amongst the squad, then roll for damage on each unsaved wound. In this case, we may very well end up with a squad having multiple wounded squad members, but also keeps the shenanigans down to a minimum as the defender wouldn't be able to waste a 6 damage shot on a model with a single wound left.
As described In a previous example, we could use the tyranid warrior example. A squad of 3 warriors, one of which is down to 2 wounds, being shot by 4 lascannons suffers 2 failed save wounds. The defender allocates the wounds, applying the first to the wounded warrior first, and the second to one of the healthy models. From here damage could then be rolled for each wound. You could pick the wounded model first and roll for damage and then the unwounded model, or vice-versa. This may result in the wounded model taking only a single wound while the "fresh" model dies from a 4 damage shot.
As I said before, this is pure speculation at this point, but this is one of the ways I could see them finding a way to avoid any shooting shenanigans. Please feel free to correct me if I missed something important or obvious, I don't quite have these new rules rumors memorized down to a T quite yet.
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
Assuming they cost only 35 points like they used to? And none blow up? And I can't shoot past them? Sure it might be frustrating. I'm sure Tau won't worry about Rhinos in fusion blaster range.
changemod wrote: Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
Probably as frustrating as it was to watch every squad sent charging in be blasted apart by Overwatch after being pin-cushioned to death from across the board.
Thank you for those that clarified the transport/passengers rule for me. Hopefully it will be a per-model rather than per-unit basis in the finished rules.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Thank you for those that clarified the transport/passengers rule for me. Hopefully it will be a per-model rather than per-unit basis in the finished rules.
Depends on the points. It creates a risk versus reward scenario that keeps people from jamming assault terminators into rhinos. Assuming that's a thing.
The only thing in my army that run in transports are Firewarriors so it doesn't affect me, but I can see how people can call Kirby's Mother name whenever their character/ultra expensive GK paladin dies for a 1.
Probably a Mortal Wound onto a 1 would be better. It kill orks, but just wound multi-wound models. For a more easy aplication it could be something like "Roll a dice for every model of a unit in the transport, for every 1 that unit suffers a Mortal Wound"
changemod wrote: Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
Probably as frustrating as it was to watch every squad sent charging in be blasted apart by Overwatch after being pin-cushioned to death from across the board.
I mean, this is only fair.
I can't really think of any instances where Overwatch actually killed one of my assault units.
Just about the only time I remember seeing it happen -at all- was someone charging a Hive Tyrant with two wounds left at a Deathmark and Harbinger of Despair unit that had marked it for death.
Surprisingly charging an AP2 flamer that wounds you on a 2+ isn't a good career move.
changemod wrote: Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
If all models can use grenades again then it won't be as bad. Sure, you may not be able to shoot for a turn but you'll damage their transport.
Maybe even destroy it if your lucky, deterring opponents from charging in the first place.
Unusual Suspect wrote: The wording is ambiguous, so (as ALWAYS) it is a bit early to Doom & Gloom.
It's really not, I think people need to work on their reading comprehension skills. It's abundantly clear that you roll a dice for each model in the transport and if a 1 is rolled that model dies. Not the squad, not your grandmother, you don't take a wound. The model dies. It's as clear as a super-clear clear thing. Dakka vision is a terrible thing.
Unusual Suspect wrote: The wording is ambiguous, so (as ALWAYS) it is a bit early to Doom & Gloom.
It's really not, I think people need to work on their reading comprehension skills. It's abundantly clear that you roll a dice for each model in the transport and if a 1 is rolled that model dies. Not the squad, not your grandmother, you don't take a wound. The model dies. It's as clear as a super-clear clear thing. Dakka vision is a terrible thing.
Agreed and I don't even think it's a worrisome rule in that, yet.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.
Only good thinks can come from Abaddon or Papa Smurf going down. The easier, the better
No, its not impossible to have both of them, but historically we have not had both of them. We have had some good rules that were fluffy, and some good rules that werent fluffy. We've had bad rules that weren't fluffy, and some bad rules that were very fluffy. not to mention that the fluff for this game is written inconsistently by upwards of 20 seperate authors and a half dozen codex writers.
Which is due to them being incompetent. Doesn't matter then do they try to follow fluff or not. If they try to break fluff(like with mandiblasters) they still would screw the rule.
Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.
You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.
Or:
Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 2 damage,
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)
You lose terminator with wound.
Unless you roll one at a time which way it goes?
Your way if defender choose, my way if attacker choose. Is GW looking to maximize casualties or minimize?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
Order in which defender picks up damage rolls to apply. This has big effect and the more wounds model has and bigger damage gun they get shot the bigger the effect. If there is unit that has 6 wound models and fired by lascannon this could make difference between wounded model having 1 wound suffered(5 left) or 5 wound suffered(1 left)...
BroodSpawn wrote: What the issue seems to be is people not agreeing on who decides what order multiple multi-wound unsaved shots should be resolved in... but only when it comes to models that have greater than 2 but less than 6 wounds. Which seems to be Tyranids and not much else (if you're really worrying about removing multiple Russ's with a Las-Dev squad then you're going to have had to be very lucky with your rolls).
It affects also with W2 models and yes even with russ platoons where it can mean difference between causing 1 wound or 6 wounds to the next russ after destroying one russ with barrage of lascannons. If you are IG player do you prefer second russ suffering 1 or 6 wound? Whatabout when you are opposing russ?
A few players in my local group have picked on this as a flaw, or at least a feature that will define the style of play at tournaments. Of course we've yet to see points, terrian rules or if the rules/dataslates reveal a standard counter to such an opening move.
I very much doubt that vehicles will cause models they assault to have to forgo shooting in order to retreat away. Vehicles don't lock models into combat now,and it would obviously be a bad thing to add that effect in now.
If for some reason they did over look that, I also expect it to be corrected very quickly. Your friends would get one tournament of giggles max I think
Players wanted vehicles and non-vehicles to work same way. They got it.
I think its fairy safe to say rhinos and other transports are gonna go up in cost.
If you are gonna let 5 rhinos charge 5 vulnerable shooty units then no offence but ye battleplan is going wrong right?
its not much different than letting you get swapped down by multiple units of flesh hounds, or spawn or wraiths etc currently... just in this case you can actually get out of the combat instead of b loosing the combat and being sweeped to death
changemod wrote: Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?
If all models can use grenades again then it won't be as bad. Sure, you may not be able to shoot for a turn but you'll damage their transport.
Maybe even destroy it if your lucky, deterring opponents from charging in the first place.
Of course 1 turn is generally all you need as the assault player. Next turn you have contents inside charging. Job done.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.
Actually I wouldn't (and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models). I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went. However, I don't think that will be the case. "Characters suffer a wound on the roll of a 1" for example.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.
Actually I wouldn't (and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models). I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went. However, I don't think that will be the case. "Characters suffer a wound on the roll of a 1" for example.
True that. Its like complaining that deep strike mishap sucks because you wanted to deepstrike close to the enemy but had to take the mishap because you were unlucky, or dangerous terrain in its current form because you can still die from it. Its risk vs reward. And for all you know characters just take a wound. In AoS if you move through a sylvaneth wyldwood you roll a die for any who ran or charge across. On a 1 you remove your model but that does not happen to monsters or heroes so I believe that might be the case where it might remove some models but not all.
rollawaythestone wrote: I fail to see why it's so scary. Your dudes will still fight in combat - likely wounding on 5+ or 6+. You will probably be able to fling a grenade or something too, or your seargent with powerfist will destroy it himself. In fact, buying a decent weapon on your seargant (a mace or sword or something) might actually be useful for once! The transport will lock you down for one turn at most against a squad at full strength.
And if you're playing with Power Levels instead of points, you won't think twice about giving that weapon to sarge. I really like that when playing with Power Levels, you can take upgrades that you would normally never even think of. You'll be able to tell which point system an AM player uses depending on the presence of Hunter Killer missles on all the tanks.
Or you could look at his point about deepstrike mishaps and see the value of "maybe I shouldn't put my character in a tank when the enemy fielded a battery of lascannons..."
If you think the tank will survive, give big boy a speed boost. If you are affraid it will pop, but are cool with a 5/6 chance to survive, give big boy a speed boost. If you aren't cool with either, then don't do it.
It's not like they can target him if he's behind the tank anyway.
If you dont want to risk Abbadon and co the choice is to not put him in a transport. With vehicles generally being tougher I can see why they wouldn't want them to be a near risk free set of ablative wounds. If you are in a badly damaged Land Raider you might want to get out.
On Transport stun locking I'd have thought the answer was some effective assault units to pick them up before they get there. Although its probably more efficient to pack some heavier guns and just kill them.
On the topic of Transports Stun Locking, My thought is that It's probally going to make stuff like Melta-Bomb must buy's for squads. If you can drop the transport's wounds fairly low in your shooting phase, you would then be able to just kill the transport with your return attacks in the enemy fight phase. Then your free to act normally.
You don't need to fully kill the transports, you just need to drop them low enough that they are not a threat in the melee phase.
Hollow wrote: (and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models)
What the feth has that got to do with anything?
A bad rule is a bad rule. It's got nothing to with being a "grown ass man".
Hollow wrote: Actually I wouldn't . I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went.
I just... I mean. I can't even.
"I'd just accept it cuz they playtested it so it must be perfect!"
You're the kind of person infomercial makers must dream of.
Oh look, another person that thinks that just because they saw an incredibly obvious potential issue in an article written by a PR guy with no context as to how it functions amongst the larger ruleset who thinks that it's 100% immutable fact that it works exactly how it sounds, and that by seeing this, again incredibly obvious thing, thinks they solved some kind of secret code that only THEY were smart enough to see.
You saw it, I saw it, the rules people probably saw it, the playtesters definitely saw it. Does that mean it's guaranteed to have been fixed? No. Would it be stupid to have abaddon die because a rhino hit a bush? Yes. Well I mean not abaddon specifically but, like a good character, yes it would suck. But you're not special because you can read.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.
Actually I wouldn't (and not just because I'm a grown ass man who understands that he's just playing a game some some plastic models). I'd just accept that it made sense within the playtested balance of the game and see how it went. However, I don't think that will be the case. "Characters suffer a wound on the roll of a 1" for example.
1 - Disliking a rule has nothing to do with one's personal responsibility or lack of it. Just the fact that you went there shows you have no idea of how to refute his point.
2 - Just because something survived playtesting doesn't mean it should have. I mean look at so many, many things in the previous editions.
3 - As it stands (Models inside a wrecked Transport will now die on the roll of a 1.) it IS a badly designed rule.
The summary of the known rumors does not give a complete picture. The sum is often greater than the parts. I hope this also holds for the new release. I've some things I like, some other things I don't.
wuestenfux wrote: The summary of the known rumors does not give a complete picture. The sum is often greater than the parts. I hope this also holds for the new release. I've some things I like, some other things I don't.
There is alot more I like about the new rules than dont so far, but you are 100% correct, but I may dislike the rules all together.
Can always give the character a jump pack and have him/her/it fly along side the trasport as long as the enemy is sniper free they can't shoot him unless he's closest xD
also even if it is straight dead on a 1 i'm not sure we know the order of allocation e.g. 5 marines and ragnar blackmane in a rhino... do you roll for each one individually or do you simply roll 6 dice and assign any 1's to who you like... seems to be the later by how they have confirmed wound allocation works now from shooting.
It does suck for more elite units... but i expect the price of a land raider will be the same cross faction... a unit of termintors gets more out of a static costed landraider than say a unit of inq henchmen would so...
H.B.M.C. wrote: You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.
I figure it will be up to the owning player. As they want to speed up the game, if you have a squad of 4 Terminators and Abaddon, instead of rolling five dice seperate dice, you just roll five dice at once. When you get, for instance, two 1's, you can allocate the 1's yourself, so would 2 Terminators die.
I think the universal rule is "Owning player chooses casualties", it is like that when taking damage in squads without transports, and will prolly also be inside transports.
Tyel wrote: If you dont want to risk Abbadon and co the choice is to not put him in a transport.
ERJAK wrote: Oh look, another person that thinks that just because they saw an incredibly obvious potential issue in an article written by a PR guy with no context as to how it functions amongst the larger ruleset who thinks that it's 100% immutable fact that it works exactly how it sounds, and that by seeing this, again incredibly obvious thing, thinks they solved some kind of secret code that only THEY were smart enough to see.
Stormcrow managed to get what I was saying instantly. Shame the rest of you didn't. My point certainly wasn't complex.
The discussion about the new rule set is a bit a waste of time, since GW have given us only part of the rules. They opened the door a bit and let us have a glance into a shiny new room they say. I'm cautious since the OP and underwhelming units/models, gaps and loop holes of the rule set are glooming everywhere.
wuestenfux wrote: The discussion about the new rule set is a bit a waste of time, since GW have given us only part of the rules. They opened the door a bit and let us have a glance into a shiny new room they say. I'm cautious since the OP and underwhelming units/models, gaps and loop holes of the rule set are glooming everywhere.
I think the way in which people are so eager to declare things OP or underwhelming when they haven't got anywhere near to the majority of the picture kind of tells you that they are the kind of people that wouldn't be happy with a game handcrafted by God himself.
wuestenfux wrote: The discussion about the new rule set is a bit a waste of time, since GW have given us only part of the rules. They opened the door a bit and let us have a glance into a shiny new room they say. I'm cautious since the OP and underwhelming units/models, gaps and loop holes of the rule set are glooming everywhere.
I think the way in which people are so eager to declare things OP or underwhelming when they haven't got anywhere near to the majority of the picture kind of tells you that they are the kind of people that wouldn't be happy with a game handcrafted by God himself.
Want to avoid bringing religion into this but arguments could be made...
Warhams-77 wrote: Any more news from shops whether preorders for 8th will start this saturday?
For what it's worth, Warhammer Fest this weekend would make the perfect time for a preorder announcement. Also at the current rate, faction preview articles would all be covered by June 10th which lines up perfectly with the two week pre-order period for a new edition.
Warhams-77 wrote: Any more news from shops whether preorders for 8th will start this saturday?
For what it's worth, Warhammer Fest this weekend would make the perfect time for a preorder announcement. Also at the current rate, faction preview articles would all be covered by June 10th which lines up perfectly with the two week pre-order period for a new edition.
Yea i expect they might even have preview games going on. I'm thinking 17th june release.
Also heard gw managers meeting to go over new rules so they can run demo games is soon.
This is what CP's are for. It reduces the risk of losing a Character from a damaged transport to a minuscule probability.
Edit: We also don't know how Characters buff auras will work. If they work inside a transport and use the transport as the auras point of origin, this rule becomes more balanced.
Median Trace wrote: This is what CP's are for. It reduces the risk of losing a Character from a damaged transport to a minuscule probability.
Edit: We also don't know how Characters buff auras will work. If they work inside a transport and use the transport as the auras point of origin, this rule becomes more balanced.
Considering that so far they have copied AoS transport rules, and in AoS a model inside a transport is specified to be out of the game for all purposes, i doubt that auras will extend outside.
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or
be affected in any way whilst they are embarked.
Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other
units within a certain range have no effect on a
unit that is embarked or whilst the unit that has the
ability is embarked, and you cannot measure from
or to an embarked unit"
Median Trace wrote: This is what CP's are for. It reduces the risk of losing a Character from a damaged transport to a minuscule probability.
Edit: We also don't know how Characters buff auras will work. If they work inside a transport and use the transport as the auras point of origin, this rule becomes more balanced.
Considering that so far they have copied AoS transport rules, and in AoS a model inside a transport is specified to be out of the game for all purposes, i doubt that auras will extend outside.
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or
be affected in any way whilst they are embarked.
Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other
units within a certain range have no effect on a
unit that is embarked or whilst the unit that has the
ability is embarked, and you cannot measure from
or to an embarked unit"
That's always been such a gamey rule. Just because the model isn't on the board doesn't mean the -unit- isn't on the board, and it's pretty tortured logic to think otherwise.
Median Trace wrote: This is what CP's are for. It reduces the risk of losing a Character from a damaged transport to a minuscule probability.
Edit: We also don't know how Characters buff auras will work. If they work inside a transport and use the transport as the auras point of origin, this rule becomes more balanced.
Considering that so far they have copied AoS transport rules, and in AoS a model inside a transport is specified to be out of the game for all purposes, i doubt that auras will extend outside.
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or
be affected in any way whilst they are embarked.
Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other
units within a certain range have no effect on a
unit that is embarked or whilst the unit that has the
ability is embarked, and you cannot measure from
or to an embarked unit"
Well the 40k rules for transports are already different, it's been started that you can shoot from inside a vehicle.
Median Trace wrote: This is what CP's are for. It reduces the risk of losing a Character from a damaged transport to a minuscule probability.
Edit: We also don't know how Characters buff auras will work. If they work inside a transport and use the transport as the auras point of origin, this rule becomes more balanced.
Considering that so far they have copied AoS transport rules, and in AoS a model inside a transport is specified to be out of the game for all purposes, i doubt that auras will extend outside.
"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or
be affected in any way whilst they are embarked.
Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other
units within a certain range have no effect on a
unit that is embarked or whilst the unit that has the
ability is embarked, and you cannot measure from
or to an embarked unit"
That's always been such a gamey rule. Just because the model isn't on the board doesn't mean the -unit- isn't on the board, and it's pretty tortured logic to think otherwise.
If you want to use your special purpose, you have to expose yourself.
I spoke to my GW manager yesterday, and apparently he is going to Dallas, TX this week for a big seminar on 8th edition. So we should be finding out a lot more soon depending on how tight-lipped some managers are or are not.
How do exploding transports work in AoS? Because until I'm told different, I'm assuming that I pick up as many dice as I have models, roll, and then remove roughly 1/6... my choice. Because that makes good sense and keeps the game moving... allegedly the top criteria of 8E.
changemod wrote: That's always been such a gamey rule. Just because the model isn't on the board doesn't mean the -unit- isn't on the board, and it's pretty tortured logic to think otherwise.
Problem being without that the bubble effect becomes weirdly big. Character is suddenly in many places at once.
Lobukia wrote: How do exploding transports work in AoS? Because until I'm told different, I'm assuming that I pick up as many dice as I have models, roll, and then remove roughly 1/6... my choice. Because that makes good sense and keeps the game moving... allegedly the top criteria of 8E.
That seems to be the case:
"If the Arkanaut Frigate is destroyed, the passengers
immediately bail out: roll a dice for each model
embarked within it. For each roll of 1, a model
from that model’s unit (your choice) is slain. The
embarked units must then disembark before the
vessel is removed."
Automatically Appended Next Post: That said, you roll for each unit, and characters are units on their own, so...
Lobukia wrote: How do exploding transports work in AoS? Because until I'm told different, I'm assuming that I pick up as many dice as I have models, roll, and then remove roughly 1/6... my choice. Because that makes good sense and keeps the game moving... allegedly the top criteria of 8E.
Lobukia wrote: How do exploding transports work in AoS? Because until I'm told different, I'm assuming that I pick up as many dice as I have models, roll, and then remove roughly 1/6... my choice. Because that makes good sense and keeps the game moving... allegedly the top criteria of 8E.
This is exactly how I read it as well.
On Characters in vehicles. It would be a pity if My CCS Chimera looses it's Command Tank rule
changemod wrote: That's always been such a gamey rule. Just because the model isn't on the board doesn't mean the -unit- isn't on the board, and it's pretty tortured logic to think otherwise.
Problem being without that the bubble effect becomes weirdly big. Character is suddenly in many places at once.
Exactly. It got even more broken when you embark a unit inside a fortification and have a nigh-invulnerable unit making everything nearby more effective. Until they FAQ'd it Malanthropes were especially bad for this when taken alongside a cheap bastion; a bigger Shrouded and Synapse bubble suddenly protected by AV14.
This thread is turning into a bit of a train wreck, and people seem to think that ignoring the rules of the site is OK too.
It isn't.
GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING TIME!
STOP with the personal attacks - UNDERSTAND that people are probably going to have different opinions than you - and that you'll probably NOT be able to convice them otherwise.
STAY on topic.
Check the thread title before posting in case you are confused as to what the TOPIC might be.
Feel free to create a separate thread if you want to discuss a DIFFERENT topic.
This thread has become a massive pain in terms of the amount of work it is generating.
It is a useful thread though, so we'd like to keep it up and running.
So, from this point on, people are going to start getting warnings and/or suspensions.
We may end up seeing a rule for heroes (or the more tanky heroes/IC's) where the explosion only causes a mortal wound.
For example, it may be that if I roll a 1 on my weirdboy he goes poof. and if I do so on my warboss he takes 1 mortal wound. But we dont know yet.
We also dont know if we have to apply them per unit. As we can have multiple units in a wagon (20 slots) we could just end up rolling 20 dice and choosing 1/6 models to die. Can AoS have multiple units in a transport? I assume they can if people are putting heroes in them?
Check the thread title before posting in case you are confused as to what the TOPIC might be.
To be fair, and this is noting general trends of topic drift and warnings happening over and over, it actually isn't all that clear what is and isn't defined as on topic. The upcoming edition and all facets of it is an extremely wide topic with a very broad range of sub-topics.
Some direction beyond simply that this is the 8th edition previews thread might not be amiss, honestly, because the line is very blurry.
Solar Shock wrote: We may end up seeing a rule for heroes (or the more tanky heroes/IC's) where the explosion only causes a mortal wound.
For example, it may be that if I roll a 1 on my weirdboy he goes poof. and if I do so on my warboss he takes 1 mortal wound. But we dont know yet.
We also dont know if we have to apply them per unit. As we can have multiple units in a wagon (20 slots) we could just end up rolling 20 dice and choosing 1/6 models to die. Can AoS have multiple units in a transport? I assume they can if people are putting heroes in them?
Regardless of how the wounds get applied, it's pretty likely you'll be able to use your command point reroll to try and avoid the result. They are basically designed for situations like this.
Rippy wrote: What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.
The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)
The confusion is as follows:
I shoot with my Battlecannon at Tyranid Warriors and get 6 shots. All wounds. All saves failed. I roll for damage and get 1,2,2,3,3,3 wounds from the D3 rolls.
Does the Tyranid player get to choose the order the 1,2,2,3,3,3 get applied? And so chooses 3,3 (waste 2 wounds), 3,2 (waste 1 wound), 2,1 (resulting in 2 dead Warriors and one on a single wound remaining).
If it's the case it leads to split fire being beneficial to pick off multiple wounded models across multiple units and then split firing again from a second unit to maximise damage potential (as per my example above).
You roll for damage after a model fails a save. Why would you roll damage prior?
Check the thread title before posting in case you are confused as to what the TOPIC might be.
To be fair, and this is noting general trends of topic drift and warnings happening over and over, it actually isn't all that clear what is and isn't defined as on topic. The upcoming edition and all facets of it is an extremely wide topic with a very broad range of sub-topics.
Some direction beyond simply that this is the 8th edition previews thread might not be amiss, honestly, because the line is very blurry.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I forgot to mention, my GW manager said to expect 8th the second weekend in June.
With 1 or 2 weeks of pre-order time?
He didn't say. I won't be able to get my copy from there anyway since I won't be in town. He said he should know more after this week's seminar in Texas.
