Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KiloFiX wrote:


No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).

That one is always difficult for a wargame. It makes it difficult to plan the next moves reasonably especially if you only get one set of actions. You don't know whether to set up an assault for next turn or not.

So S v T remains? It must have been reworked though. I'm...ok with it. I was all geared up for flat rolls but I'll live with this.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

theocracity wrote:

That's not really tactics though, that's just list building and purchasing decisions. The only tactical element of that is knowing your local metagame, which will still be important - there's just less chance of there being binary games where you hardly have a reason to even put models on the table.

I mean, in your example, 9 times out of 10 shotgun beats bow - but that doesn't mean the bow has literally no point in even picking up the dice.

Given the amount of choice that exists in Infinity, even in a non-tournament environment against my mates I have no idea what they might bring, so can't build a list to counter that. Plus I would always build my list for the mission not to counter my opponent. Match-ups are decided at the stage of deployment and as the game evolves, especially when camo is factored in. Tactical depth. Of course luck is a factor, it's a dice game, but the best players mitigate this by picking good match-ups whether it be with range-bands, MSV vs camo etc. etc.

But in current 40k some matchups are just completely pointless due to the binary nature of AV. There's no tactical choice of whether my Lootas should shoot at a Land Raider - they couldn't hurt it if they tried, no matter how the game is evolving. I would think there would be more tactical choice if I had to decide whether I should shoot a high priority target, even if I have a low chance of actually doing damage, vs a low priority target that's more squishy.

Sydrian wrote:

So to point out how stupid a system where everything can hurt everything is, we use an example from a game where everything can hurt everything?

Hence 'nine times out of ten'. Try relying on the crit mechanic with a combi-rifle against a jotum and see what happens. Instead, what you would do is use a hacker. Using the right tool for the right job is what gives Infinity so much tactical depth and was an important part of what made 40k compelling, and it would be a shame to see it go.

How is that different from using a Bolter squad against a Land Raider vs using drop pod meltas?

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.

Hopefully there's a good design mechanic that eliminates any tables to consult. I am hoping, if S>T, need 3. S=T need 4. S<T, need 5. The end.>

Double turn against a shooty army would be rage inducing. I can see why that wasn't ported over.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So S v T remains? It must have been reworked though. I'm...ok with it. I was all geared up for flat rolls but I'll live with this.

I'm not sure why. It could still use the same principles (1 always misses, 6 always hits. 2+ if you are over double SvT, 3+ if under double, 4+ equal SvT and vice versa.)

EmberlordofFire8 wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Foley answered some more questions on twitter regarding 8th today:

No D weapons.

No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).

Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).

Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).

No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).

Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.

I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.

Fixed to hit with rerolls of certain values is effectively the same as BS. How is hit on 3+ different form BS 4? (other than the extra calculation/thing to explain)

Will make the biggest difference in cc. It removes a mechanic (WS vs WS), streamlining the process. Which I'm for.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So S v T remains? It must have been reworked though. I'm...ok with it. I was all geared up for flat rolls but I'll live with this.

This game might actually have some legs. Thank goodness they didn't go down the route of flat to wound rolls.

 judgedoug wrote:

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.

Hopefully there's a good design mechanic that eliminates any tables to consult. I am hoping, if S>T, need 3. S=T need 4. S<T, need 5. The end.>

That's rather narrow though. That's a D3 game not a D6 game.

Ok, moving on from lasguns and landraiders

Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.

Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?

Consider this scenario:

An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.

The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc

99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.

In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.

I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.

Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.

Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?

I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.

But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me

 Whirlwind wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:


No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).

That one is always difficult for a wargame. It makes it difficult to plan the next moves reasonably especially if you only get one set of actions. You don't know whether to set up an assault for next turn or not.

So it makes it even more strategic, because you're forced to plan 2,3,4 turns ahead if the roll goes with or against you. Look at the Lord of the Rings sbg to see how that is implemented very well.

 judgedoug wrote:

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.

Hopefully there's a good design mechanic that eliminates any tables to consult. I am hoping, if S>T, need 3. S=T need 4. S<T, need 5. The end.>

Ah, now that I could live with.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So S v T remains? It must have been reworked though. I'm...ok with it. I was all geared up for flat rolls but I'll live with this.

This game might actually have some legs. Thank goodness they didn't go down the route of flat to wound rolls.

I would have preferred a radical departure and eliminated S vs T anyway. I would have preferred a complete redesign of the game from the ground up, with a focus on mechanical elegance (core task resolution system, etc). "Wounding" makes no sense anyway and is a weird holdover from earlier games that 40k (and Warhammer 1) lifted it's mechanics from.

I like the random initiative in AoS, but I think in 40k it's good to have variety and in the new 40k it seems the spending of "command points" will break the IGOUGO nature of the game.

AoS does this with the initiative roll and combat activation, 40k will does this with the command points and perhaps other mechanics.

Can't wait to see more!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ok, moving on from lasguns and landraiders

Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.

Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?

Consider this scenario:

An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.

The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc

99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.

In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.

I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.

Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.

Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?

I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.

But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me

They could always create a special rule on the warscroll of each unit that gets priority against charges:

Seasoned Warrior, Ancient Hero, Furious Beast: This model has priority when charged. If it is charged by a model with Seasoned Warrior/Ancient Hero/Furious Beast, whoever has the highest X or rolls the highest on a D6 gets initiative.

A total hypothetical, but it would eliminate your worry, but still give you a reason to charge units with that rule with mobs if they were big enough to weather the storm.

Even simpler, you could just have it as a keyword with an a 30 word exception in the core rules.

 judgedoug wrote:

I would have preferred a radical departure and eliminated S vs T anyway. I would have preferred a complete redesign of the game from the ground up, with a focus on mechanical elegance (core task resolution system, etc). "Wounding" makes no sense anyway and is a weird holdover from earlier games that 40k (and Warhammer 1) lifted it's mechanics from.

What is "core task resolution system"?

Idea of wounding mechanic is to provide two different levels of unit toughness, to both simulate units with physical differences, and give more variations for armies etc.
Of course you could just have multi-wound models instead, but that would bring out more in-game bookkeeping.

I am not crazy about Command points. I have never liked such systems anywhere, they always feel like an artificial addition on top of a system which really should work without them.

 judgedoug wrote:

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.

Hopefully there's a good design mechanic that eliminates any tables to consult. I am hoping, if S>T, need 3. S=T need 4. S<T, need 5. The end.>

Never understood why anyone needs to consult a table for this. Even with the current system it's easy . It's not like there are some irregular steps. Like S4 would wound W3 still on a 4+ but S5 wounds W4 on a 3+. You always add or subtract the difference to the roll.

But with you example it would be horrible, as any weapon would wound even the toughest targets on a 5+ . Now that would enrage me when your guardsmen wound my tank on a 5+

I was surprised because they mentioned that they were reworking it so that you only need to know your own models rules, which suggested flat rolls. But still, it's not a big deal.

If they aren't using the initiative roll I hope they find another way to break up IGYG.

theocracity wrote:

 Capamaru wrote:
I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...

Someone did the math earlier and I believe it would take 100 guardsmen a total of 11 rounds of continuos fire to down a land raider. (maybe it was 50 guardsmen - either way a completely unrealistic game situation).

Except they based it on a stupidly large amount of hp and completley ignored the other new change which reinforces the anything can kill anything is bollocks. That is that the Land Raiders capabilities degrade with dmg done, the 50grots/guardsmen might only strip 3 to 4 hp but that could dramatically change the LR offensive and defensive capabilities. Including but not limited to increasing it's to hit roll, reducing it's attacks, reducing it's weapon strength, reducing it's move value, permanently reducing it's armour save. So the 2nd round of firing is against a now plus 3 armour save allowing more damage and a further degradation of abilities allowing 75pts of infantry to stop 275 pts of tank.

Also it's why most(not all) monstrous creatures/mounts are considered a points sink and very inefficent and those that are popular are mostly fire and forget and have to make there points back in one round of combat before there degraded down to uselessness(for there large points cost).

I think the reason there is a wound roll is not out of any attempt at realism, rather it exists because GW needed to find a way to extend the odds on a d6 roll. They are trying to do on a d6 what other systems use a d20 for.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.

If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.

Anything can hurt anything in Infinity, thanks to crits, anyway. That doesn't mean anything is a viable strategic target to anything else. If you can hurt a tank but the chances are very very slim, you're still better off picking a better target.

Smellingsalts wrote:
I think the reason there is a wound roll is not out of any attempt at realism, rather it exists because GW needed to find a way to extend the odds on a d6 roll. They are trying to do on a d6 what other systems use a d20 for.

D10 or D20 would be pretty cumbersome on a scale of 40k game.

SeanDrake wrote:

theocracity wrote:

 Capamaru wrote:
I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...

Someone did the math earlier and I believe it would take 100 guardsmen a total of 11 rounds of continuos fire to down a land raider. (maybe it was 50 guardsmen - either way a completely unrealistic game situation).

Except they based it on a stupidly large amount of hp and completley ignored the other new change which reinforces the anything can kill anything is bollocks. That is that the Land Raiders capabilities degrade with dmg done, the 50grots/guardsmen might only strip 3 to 4 hp but that could dramatically change the LR offensive and defensive capabilities. Including but not limited to increasing it's to hit roll, reducing it's attacks, reducing it's weapon strength, reducing it's move value, permanently reducing it's armour save. So the 2nd round of firing is against a now plus 3 armour save allowing more damage and a further degradation of abilities allowing 75pts of infantry to stop 275 pts of tank.

Also it's why most(not all) monstrous creatures/mounts are considered a points sink and very inefficent and those that are popular are mostly fire and forget and have to make there points back in one round of combat before there degraded down to uselessness(for there large points cost).

Dismisses a cited argument because they used made up data.

Proceeds to simply make gak up to counter the idea.

This is getting tiresome.

SeanDrake wrote:

theocracity wrote:

 Capamaru wrote:
I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...

Someone did the math earlier and I believe it would take 100 guardsmen a total of 11 rounds of continuos fire to down a land raider. (maybe it was 50 guardsmen - either way a completely unrealistic game situation).

Except they based it on a stupidly large amount of hp and completley ignored the other new change which reinforces the anything can kill anything is bollocks. That is that the Land Raiders capabilities degrade with dmg done, the 50grots/guardsmen might only strip 3 to 4 hp but that could dramatically change the LR offensive and defensive capabilities. Including but not limited to increasing it's to hit roll, reducing it's attacks, reducing it's weapon strength, reducing it's move value, permanently reducing it's armour save. So the 2nd round of firing is against a now plus 3 armour save allowing more damage and a further degradation of abilities allowing 75pts of infantry to stop 275 pts of tank.

Also it's why most(not all) monstrous creatures/mounts are considered a points sink and very inefficent and those that are popular are mostly fire and forget and have to make there points back in one round of combat before there degraded down to uselessness(for there large points cost).

If you're going to take issue with people making guesstimates about unknown unit statistics - which is a fair point to make - you probably shouldn't follow it up with further guesstimates about what the unknown damage table looks like. :p

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ok, moving on from lasguns and landraiders

Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.

Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?

Consider this scenario:

An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.

The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc

99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.

In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.

I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.

Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.

Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?

I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.

But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me

Totally see your point, but how would you realise this? What would be considered a flank charge? I'm totally against facing in a high model count game like 40k. It would be just to tedious for me to set up everyones facing. And as modern models are dynamic as hell it's hard to tell where the actual front is.

There are a number of situations where chargers striking first would be justified:

If a command point is used to give our initiative 2 Orks the waaagh power or something then yeah, they go before the I8 prince.

Nurgle marines could distract the prince with a cloud of flies or something. A Tau battle suit could go stealth for a few seconds before re-appearing, thus distracting the prince and so on...

Equally, if the prince is standing next to terrain, say a wood, then Orks charging out of terrain would be justified at striking first in my book, as that would represent a prepared ambush or something.

Also, the reverse should be true. Greater daemon of Slaanesh is charged by humans, then the Greater daemon could drop a command point to make them strike last, which would be justified by the fluff.

I have no problem with the above happening, but a blanket charge = strike first, is not justified in my book.

Maybe things will be different when more details are forthcoming?

 KiloFiX wrote:
Foley answered some more questions on twitter regarding 8th today:

No D weapons.

No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).

Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).

Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).

No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).

Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.

All of this seems good. The three things I dislike most about AOS were not ported to 40K, so I'm really happy. I'm also happy to see AOS monster damage mechanics in 40K; that's a good system.
I'm not exactly thrilled about everything-can-hurt everything, but if odds are low enough, it's not a big deal. Overall, the game seems to be heading in good direction.

 DynamicCalories wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ok, moving on from lasguns and landraiders

Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.

Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?

Consider this scenario:

An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.

The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc

99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.

In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.

I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.

Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.

Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?

I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.

But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me

They could always create a special rule on the warscroll of each unit that gets priority against charges:

Seasoned Warrior, Ancient Hero, Furious Beast: This model has priority when charged. If it is charged by a model with Seasoned Warrior/Ancient Hero/Furious Beast, whoever has the highest X or rolls the highest on a D6 gets initiative.

A total hypothetical, but it would eliminate your worry, but still give you a reason to charge units with that rule with mobs if they were big enough to weather the storm.

Even simpler, you could just have it as a keyword with an a 30 word exception in the core rules.

That would be a good compromise in my book with the use of key words. As always balance is the key.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rhavien wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ok, moving on from lasguns and landraiders

Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.

Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?

Consider this scenario:

An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.

The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc

99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.

In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.

I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.

Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.

Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?

I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.

But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me

Totally see your point, but how would you realise this? What would be considered a flank charge? I'm totally against facing in a high model count game like 40k. It would be just to tedious for me to set up everyones facing. And as modern models are dynamic as hell it's hard to tell where the actual front is.

Facing is a pain, no question there, so it would have to be a majority of the unit. None the less, Maelstrom's Edge, with its clever bases, makes clear what a model's facing is, and it doesn't slow down the game.

 judgedoug wrote:

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.

Hopefully there's a good design mechanic that eliminates any tables to consult. I am hoping, if S>T, need 3. S=T need 4. S<T, need 5. The end.>

If they follow the AoS template, it'd be:

A successful To Wound roll is 4+. For every point your attack's S is higher than the opponent's T, add +1 to the roll; for every point the T is higher than S, subtract -1. Unmodified rolls of 6 are always successful, unmodified rolls of 1 are always failures.

No D weapons.

No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).

Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).

Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).

No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).

Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.

Goodbye D weapons, one of the worst rules ever created and implemented in a gameset.

All sounding good to me. Onwards!