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.

If you break off a close combat, you are broken.
But you can only fall back 12" max. (normally)
The enemy is no longer locked in combat after that.

Does that mean, if you do not regroup in your Consolidation phase, do not destroy the enemy unit in your shooting phase AND the enemy stays where he is, you're automatically destroyed the next round?

Noir Eternal wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:The Comm LInk stratagem (1 point) gives you an additional reserve dice in your reserve pool - - When running an all reserve force that extra dice can come in mighty handy.

Good catch, wasn't thinking of using strategems for that.

Besides going 2nd for Daemons hardly makes a difference

It's prefered for an all reserve army in most cases, although the whole getting points for objectives every turn may impact that a bit.

IPS wrote:If you break off a close combat, you are broken.
But you can only fall back 12" max. (normally)
The enemy is no longer locked in combat after that.

Does that mean, if you do not regroup in your Consolidation phase, do not destroy the enemy unit in your shooting phase AND the enemy stays where he is, you're automatically destroyed the next round?

Unless you engage them again or consolidate into a transport I think.

I think a Daemon player would still be fine going second. As the first player still has to keep the objectives during the Daemon player's turn to gain the points

With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets.
But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at
worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.

alarmingrick wrote:With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets.
But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at
worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.

I'll be driving around in my plasmacutioners firing all barrels on full every turn.

ph34r wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets.
But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at
worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.

I'll be driving around in my plasmacutioners firing all barrels on full every turn.

Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.

ShumaGorath wrote:

ph34r wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets.
But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at
worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.

I'll be driving around in my plasmacutioners firing all barrels on full every turn.

Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.

I'm sure i'm just knee-jerking it. But time will tell.

ShumaGorath wrote:

IPS wrote:If you break off a close combat, you are broken.
But you can only fall back 12" max. (normally)
The enemy is no longer locked in combat after that.

Does that mean, if you do not regroup in your Consolidation phase, do not destroy the enemy unit in your shooting phase AND the enemy stays where he is, you're automatically destroyed the next round?

Unless you engage them again or consolidate into a transport I think.

Does this mean that we'll see lists full of empty dedicated transports whizzing around quickly picking units up and dropping them off everywhere?

alarmingrick wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ph34r wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:With some rules, the LRBT having sponsons will make sense. They could fire on 3 different targets.
But based on their EV, it makes them as good as dead if they do. Before you'd be wasting points at
worst. Now it could get you killed if you use your sponsons.

I'll be driving around in my plasmacutioners firing all barrels on full every turn.

Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.

I'm sure i'm just knee-jerking it. But time will tell.

Statistically against most armies the LR is harder to kill at ranged under this new ruleset. Can someone tell me if infantry still attacks them on rear armor? I couldn't find anything about that when skimming.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Statistically against most armies the LR is harder to kill at ranged under this new ruleset. Can someone tell me if infantry still attacks them on rear armor? I couldn't find anything about that when skimming.

Yes they do.

Interesting...

The start of the turn sequence is now:
1) Place reserves;
2) Start of turn actions;
3) Start of movement actions;
4) Rest of movement phase.

This means that psykers coming from reserve can use start of turn/movement powers (go Eldar!) and Tyranids coming from reserve need to check for Instinctive Behaviour.

Kroothawk wrote:

Dribble Joy wrote:Warseer got done by GW hardcore in the past, they don't want to be anywhere near this.

Then they should close the news&rumour forum alltogether instead of, as I assume, aggressively spreading false information.
They don't have to behave like Russian state TV dealing with critical information on Putin Superman.

There. I fixed that for you.

tetrisphreak wrote:Rail rifles hit all the models in a line at s6 ap3 correct? and ap3 now ignores FnP? And cover saves are mostly 5+ now? Yeah, that sounds like a pretty solid unit to me. Sniper Drones are going to be a great tactical choice while broadsides take apart the tanks. No more +1 for ap-1 but you can explode tanks with them if you roll a natural 6 on the damage chart (something only AP 1 weapons can do vs tanks).

Crap. I just realized that Heavy Destroyers only have a 2% chance of destroying an AV 14 tank now. (hit on a 2+, pen on a 6, explode on a 6)

Angel_of_Rust wrote:
Important thing to note here is unless these hits are directed, you can still choose to completely ignore the character and place the successful wounds on other models. In the absence of directed hits the character is even safer than before. In current rules a 5 man strong squad with a 2 W character is dealt 10 wounds, the normal troopers take 8 saves and the character takes 2. If you fail three wounds and two of them happen to be the ones allocated to the character, tough luck he dies . With the new rules, you take 20 wounds on the armor grouping and if you fail three wounds, you chose which 3 models to remove. The only time they can force those wounds/saves onto the character or any specific model is using directed hits.

If you suffer enough wounds then you still have to allocate to the character. If a 5 strong squad and a two wound character (with a different armour set) receive 7 wounds, then two still have to be put on that character.

IPS wrote:If you break off a close combat, you are broken.
But you can only fall back 12" max. (normally)
The enemy is no longer locked in combat after that.

Does that mean, if you do not regroup in your Consolidation phase, do not destroy the enemy unit in your shooting phase AND the enemy stays where he is, you're automatically destroyed the next round?

Remember that you can still move in the movement phase before checking to see if any unit is within 12".

Dribble Joy wrote:
If you suffer enough wounds then you still have to allocate to the character. If a 5 strong squad and a two wound character (with a different armour set) receive 7 wounds, then two still have to be put on that character.

I was assuming identical saves as that was the basis of the argument, a character with static wargear vs a generic and malleable HQ. Therein lies the tradeoff. If you have the same save combination, you can keep them protected from large batches of wounds, but they will be vulnerable to directed hits. If you spring for a combat shield, artificer armor, eavy armor type upgrade they will be much less vulnerable to directed hits, but will not be safe from large batches of wounds. Kind of a nice dichotomy so there is way to be completely safe from the danger of losing a sergeant or character.

azazel the cat wrote:
Crap. I just realized that Heavy Destroyers only have a 2% chance of destroying an AV 14 tank now. (hit on a 2+, pen on a 6, explode on a 6)

However glancing hits will add up en masse thanks to the hull breach rule. You may not be able to *reliably* destroy AV14 "tanks" in one shot with heavy gauss, but it will handle non-tank transports just as easily as it does now. As for the big guns, stunlock them with gauss and hull breach them to death, if possible.

Oh, by the way, Canoptek Spyders are s10 in assault now thanks to Monstrous CCWs granting 2xStr. Say hi Mr. Landraider, I have 3 spyders who would like to tell you something (s10 plus 2d6 armor pen).

Ghost arks can also rapid-fire their gauss at 18", extending double-tap range.

Angel_of_Rust wrote:I was assuming identical saves as that was the basis of the argument, a character with static wargear vs a generic and malleable HQ. Therein lies the tradeoff. If you have the same save combination, you can keep them protected from large batches of wounds, but they will be vulnerable to directed hits. If you spring for a combat shield, artificer armor, eavy armor type upgrade they will be much less vulnerable to directed hits, but will not be safe from large batches of wounds. Kind of a nice dichotomy so there is way to be completely safe from the danger of losing a sergeant or character.

Ah, right right, sorry, yes.

And again yes, it's an interesting choice, especially for all-comer and/or tourney lists which in one instance be up against low number, high quality 'wounds' like GKs, or buckets of dice like Orks.

ShumaGorath wrote:Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.

Depends how you want to look at it - the alternative is that my enemies miss half as often as they once did.

And moving from 3+ to 2+ is an improvement of 25%.

tetrisphreak wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:
Crap. I just realized that Heavy Destroyers only have a 2% chance of destroying an AV 14 tank now. (hit on a 2+, pen on a 6, explode on a 6)

However glancing hits will add up en masse thanks to the hull breach rule. You may not be able to *reliably* destroy AV14 "tanks" in one shot with heavy gauss, but it will handle non-tank transports just as easily as it does now. As for the big guns, stunlock them with gauss and hull breach them to death, if possible.

Oh, by the way, Canoptek Spyders are s10 in assault now thanks to Monstrous CCWs granting 2xStr. Say hi Mr. Landraider, I have 3 spyders who would like to tell you something (s10 plus 2d6 armor pen).

Ghost arks can also rapid-fire their gauss at 18", extending double-tap range.

It's not a question of pen hits, it's the fact that you must roll a natural 6 or else suffer a -3 penalty. But here's an interesting question: if I have a Land Raider with AV 14, and a Scarab hits my with Entropic Strike once, that will reduce the AV to 13. Would that take away the Behemoth special rule, as the vehicle is no longer AV 14? or would the Behemoth rule stay, even if the Av is reduced? I'm thinking the rule would stay, but this is iffy. Otherwise, I am definitely going to start including a unit of 3x Scarabs in every Necron list, just to take out Super-Heavies.

Dysartes wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.

Depends how you want to look at it - the alternative is that my enemies miss half as often as they once did.

And moving from 3+ to 2+ is an improvement of 25%.

Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.

Has anyone found anywhere in the rules that state that Walkers are hit on their front armour in Close Combat? I cannot seem to find it.

Also I'm assuming that the unit type entry has a typo that states that walkers are MT(1), as the summary states they are MT(2).

Because if in fact they are hit on the rear that makes CC Dreads not such a great idea.



NOTE:

- MC's are only S10 against other infantry, they still are only S+2D6 against vehicles.

Dysartes wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Realistically the majority of the game was already hitting them on a 3+, moving that to a 2+ for ranged firepower isn't a tremendous difference. You'll get hit 17% more often. Given that a glancing hit can't kill and even a lascanon needs a 6 followed by a 6 to kill a LR at range, I really don't think they're somehow getting more vulnerable.

Depends how you want to look at it - the alternative is that my enemies miss half as often as they once did.

And moving from 3+ to 2+ is an improvement of 25%.

But it's still only a 17% increase in actual hits from dice rolled while the destroyed and wrecked results are in most cases reduced by 50%. Tanks are safer in this version of the game. This will probably work out pretty well as most non tank vehicles move quickly anyway.

azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.

It is you who have erred.

If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.

It is you who have erred.

If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.

No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.

It is you who have erred.

If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.

D6 rolls:
3+ = 66.7% chance
2+ = 83.3% chance

Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6

EDIT: Perhaps I am mistaking in believing that this is what you were talking about: 3+ means you have 4 numbers of 6 to hit. That means increasing from a 3+ to a 2+ is a relative increase of 25% (one more number when you already have four) however this is only a 16.7% overall increase, as a 3+ gives you a 66.7% chance overall on a single D6, whereas a 2+ gives you an 83.3% chance overall on a single D6.

azazel the cat wrote:

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.

It is you who have erred.

If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.

D6 rolls:
3+ = 66.7% chance
2+ = 83.3% chance

Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6

It was an example, one I hoped was simple enough to be understood. I obviously failed on that aspect.

Pedantry abounds.

ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.

83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.

You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.

Example: you increase from a 16.7% chance to a 33.4% chance. This is a doubling of effectiveness, a 100% increase.

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Every point on a D6 is a 16.7% overall increase. The 25% is only a relative increase, and is a common mathematical error. That is, if I have 50% of a dollar, and I find 25 cents, I've increased my money by 50% but that doesn't mean I have 50% + 50% of a dollar. I now have 75% of a dollar.

It is you who have erred.

If I have a 50% chance of success, and increase that to a 75% chance of success, my effectiveness did not increase by 25%, it increased by 50%. 75% effectiveness is 150% as powerful as 50% effectiveness.

D6 rolls:
3+ = 66.7% chance
2+ = 83.3% chance

Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6

It was an example, one I hoped was simple enough to be understood. I obviously failed on that aspect.

150% effectiveness would imply that the effect is done 1.5 times. A 150% increase in effectiveness implies a 1.5* increase in the percentage of effectiveness that was stated. The increase in effectiveness between 25% and 50% is 25%. The relative increase in effectiveness is 100%.

You're mixing terminology and applying it wrongly/irregularly.

ShumaGorath wrote:150% effectiveness would imply that the effect is done 1.5 times.

Nope.

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.

83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.

You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.

...unless you are trying to build an army or play Warhammer 40k...