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.

 Lance845 wrote:


Right now the melee heavy forces don't have a codex. Next month we will get nids. I say lets wait and see what nids can do with stratgems, tactics, relics, and codex price points and then decide if melee as a core mechnic needs fixing or if it really is just BA and Orks needing their update.

Templars and World Eaters both have Codices. It could of course just be GW being incompetent at making non-Space Wolf MEQ melee viable as usual, but still.

We've recently had a long discussion about this over here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/740843.page#9648466

In a nut shell, simply moving fall back to occur at the end of shooting phase resolves many issues that's festering rule right now.

Honestly, I don't think that's a very fair change. It's too punishing to shooty armies. I know, I know, they can cry me a river.

But still, you fall back at the end of your shooting phase. What happens then? You stare at the enemy, you can't shoot them, and you damned sure won't assault them. You're basically just opening yourself up to be shot at just for a chance at overwatch. It's a terrible tradeoff.

If anyone cared, which no one does, least of all GW, my opinion is: Falling back works like it does now, but only works if you roll a 6+ for the unit that is falling back. Before you roll, you take melee overwatch, and you get a +1 to your roll if you can fly, and you get +1 for each point greater your move is than the unit you are falling back from. A roll of a 6 always passes, a roll of 1 always fails. Example: space marines (move 6) want to fall back from ork boyz (move 5). First, boyz get to pile in and fight, but hit only on 6s. After they fight, marines have to roll a 5+ to escape (6 + 1 because their move is 1" higher than ork boyz).

There's a sense of scale (fast units escape from slow units more easily, and vice versa), it's not unchallenged (guys get to swing as you flee), and there is an element of chance.

But in the end, we can debate exactly how to fix falling back, but the simple fact is that they're not going to. it's become too ingrained into the rules, stratagems, army doctrines, etc, and I'm not sure it will (or can) be fixed.

The absolute BEST we can hope for is some slapdash fix like "you can only fall back on a roll of a 4+", like they did with conscripts and orders. Extremely lazy, barely functional, and doesn't really address the core problem.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
But still, you fall back at the end of your shooting phase. What happens then? You stare at the enemy, you can't shoot them, and you damned sure won't assault them. You're basically just opening yourself up to be shot at just for a chance at overwatch. It's a terrible tradeoff.

But your opponent (that just charged) can 'open you up' during his/her movement and let them 'be shot'. What if you had a more viable assaulty unit that he/she didn't charge at because he/she knew he/she would get wrecked if he/she charged at that assaulty unit? - your opponent just set you up for a nice charge. And just as you say that its 'basically just opening yourself up to be shot at,' why are assault units penalized for doing exactly what they were designed to do?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
If anyone cared, which no one does, least of all GW, my opinion is: Falling back works like it does now, but only works if you roll a 6+ for the unit that is falling back. Before you roll, you take melee overwatch, and you get a +1 to your roll if you can fly, and you get +1 for each point greater your move is than the unit you are falling back from. A roll of a 6 always passes, a roll of 1 always fails. Example: space marines (move 6) want to fall back from ork boyz (move 5). First, boyz get to pile in and fight, but hit only on 6s. After they fight, marines have to roll a 5+ to escape (6 + 1 because their move is 1" higher than ork boyz).

There's a sense of scale (fast units escape from slow units more easily, and vice versa), it's not unchallenged (guys get to swing as you flee), and there is an element of chance.

This is essentially the old initiative test. THIS would require entire overhauling of 8th ed.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
But in the end, we can debate exactly how to fix falling back, but the simple fact is that they're not going to. it's become too ingrained into the rules, stratagems, army doctrines, etc, and I'm not sure it will (or can) be fixed.

The absolute BEST we can hope for is some slapdash fix like "you can only fall back on a roll of a 4+", like they did with conscripts and orders.

This would require another edition/revision to many of the existing codex/index. Switching the order of core sequence requires issuance of revised 'battle primer.'

As the game rule currently stands, there is NO REASON to charge at all if all thats going to happen is a 1 to 1 trade at best.

I'm not going to disagree with you that falling back as it currently stands is broken and unfair, but I do feel that falling back at the end of your shooting phase is still broken and unfair, just in the complete opposite direction.

And I can see how it could open an enemy unit up for a counter-assault, but shooty armies, by their very nature, kind of don't have counter-assault units. Tau don't. IG don't, really, except ogryn to an extent. Eldar kind of do, but they're not very good.

And I honestly do not see how comparing the movement values to determine how easily you can successfully fall back would require an overhauling at all. It would be pretty quick and easy, and fit inside the existing rules quite well.

You are right in that it is more-or-less an initiative based test, but based on values we actually have.

And I certainly don't see how "you can only fall back on a 4+" would require an overhaul. It's literally that simple. It's a stupid and lazy rule, but it certainly wouldn't require much in the way of revisions, which is why I think it the best we could reasonably hope for.

I think the fallback mechanic is what breaks CC. You shouldn't be able to just walk away from a bunch of madmen with big axes who are trying to kill you with said axes. It doesn't make sense logic or game play wise. Either give an extra round of CC attacks as the unit that's engaged gets attacks of opportunity on the fleeing unit, or don't allow falling back at the beginning of the turn, put it at the end. Both would greatly disincentivize falling back from CC and make it a last resort option, as it should be.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm not going to disagree with you that falling back as it currently stands is broken and unfair, but I do feel that falling back at the end of your shooting phase is still broken and unfair, just in the complete opposite direction.

And I can see how it could open an enemy unit up for a counter-assault, but shooty armies, by their very nature, kind of don't have counter-assault units. Tau don't. IG don't, really, except ogryn to an extent. Eldar kind of do, but they're not very good.

And I honestly do not see how comparing the movement values to determine how easily you can successfully fall back would require an overhauling at all. It would be pretty quick and easy, and fit inside the existing rules quite well.

You are right in that it is more-or-less an initiative based test, but based on values we actually have.

And I certainly don't see how "you can only fall back on a 4+" would require an overhaul. It's literally that simple. It's a stupid and lazy rule, but it certainly wouldn't require much in the way of revisions, which is why I think it the best we could reasonably hope for.

As Tau, you're not supposed to be charged. Neither is AM. That's how you play with those armies - shoot them down before the enemy can get to you. If you got charged again with those armies, you either played terribly or the opponent got lucky. OH AND I BEG TO DIFFER vespids and stealth suits are AMAZING right now.

I implore you to go read the thread as we havent seen you reply to our comments. There has been very valid points made about fixing CC.

Is changing the order when fall back occurs going to completely fix CC? Absolutely not. As you said, it is very fundamental issue at the core. Will it address THE worst problem with CC currently? To a degree, I believe so, with minimal changes to the rule. Any additional dice off will begin to clutter the game, the very element 8th ed was supposed to address, just like he introductio of USR's and addition of every edition.

Again, we're all entitled to our opinions, but if the game is currently divided 9-to-1 favpr of shooting, this will balance the game to 7-3 at best.

The problem is that everything everyone suggests is just too complicated and need maths rather than the theme of this edition of just doing everything from memory (i don't ever want to go back to 7th edition with a rule book and pages of cheat sheet rules.... we need something simple that a child could do that doesn't involve anything more than thinking about 1 thing.

If it was done after the shoot phase then really you could send in a cheap crappy unit to absorb the cc. 1 squad of gaurd to block the charge or charge in with conscripts. Absorb the cc and then either hold them back a few turns while your big points do the real damage or if your cheap units are killed then open up on the cc. Either way it wouod still be in the shooting armies court but means both players are forced to use skill and tactics (something this game feels like it is lacking for some armies).


On another note: I primarily play orks vs gaurd at my club and i did some maths that makes me a little sad inside with a pure cc army vs shooting.

30 boyz equals about 45 cadain guards men in points.
You role to da jump in (a risk in itself) you get 9" away from a line of 45 guards each lined up with a bubble wrap about 5" in front of them. You fire your 30 pistols and get on avarage 4 kills. You make the 9" charge and lose on avarage boy to overwatch. You do an overwhelming 69 wounds and demolished the Guard. But what now? You killed 40 pts with 180pts and don't have enough room to consolidate into the other line (and even if you did they would pull out and get the order to fire so they can fire after pulling out of cc). The guardsmen equal to your points open up on you and kill on avarage 22. This leaves 7 orks left who would then be lost to moral. And these numbers don't even include the order to reroll all misses! So you just spent 180 points to only kill 40pts. Even with your cc army behind you, now moving up but out of pistols range or can't fire after advanced, tge enemy has 45 guards for every 30 boyz you have and their officers cost half of our hq so plenty of free orders and no moral checks to go around! And the same thing starts again with your boyz killing 40pts only to have the army blam you in the face. Even if objectives based they have easy cheap deepstrike units or plenty of guards to go around! (Or valk who has the rule that you can disembark even after it has moved). And remember, for 45 guards for every 30 boyz they have plenty of points to spare if they want to cut back.... that's the power a shooting army has over a cc like orks. Honestly, I think it comes mostly down to points rather than the system itself.

To put 7th vs. 8th into perspective, the Skyhammer Formation was one of the most moaned-over formations in 7th. It made getting into CC easier than it is now, and it STILL wasn't enough to break the game. Shooting has gone up in power since then.

 lolman1c wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
The game is obviously designed to mainly be a shooting game, which makes sense in the sci-fi universe where it's set. With the kind of weaponry that's wielded in 40k, it's a bit strange that close combat is even a thing.

Close combat is much better than it was in 7th, both smoother and more powerful.

Also, the disparity in power level between different factions is much greater when it comes to close combat than shooting. If close combat was to be made as much more important as some seem to want, quite a few factions would require a complete overhaul.

Then why not make cc armies have the option to be good at shooting? As Orks I would love a shooting army but why would I ever give up 30boyz for like 10 Lootas? The Lootas are unreliable, fragile (1 wound 6+ save) and can't move (or they will be hitting on 6s!)... (we could go into an argument about how orks should be bad at shooting by as many threads have already shown the lore does not support this. Many orks specialise in shooting we just don't ever see it in the table top game). So GW is forcing players to go for boyz or we fall behind rapidly...

Orks should definitely be a shooty faction, they frikkin' love themselves some dakka! Sure, they shouldn't be very accurate, but quantity is a quality of its own and that's where orks should shine. GW need to redo Orks, and I for one hope they get big buffs in their codex.

I also think all factions should have solid shooting, as far as I know there's nothing in the fluff that says they shouldn't.

get rid of the current Overwatch....make it a Strategem to shoot on opponents move phase instead of your move and shoot, then
let all units in combat attack the fall back unit with a mode like the current overwatch (ala each attack needs a roll of a 6 to hit)

 admironheart wrote:
get rid of the current Overwatch....make it a Strategem to shoot on opponents move phase instead of your move and shoot, then
let all units in combat attack the fall back unit with a mode like the current overwatch (ala each attack needs a roll of a 6 to hit)

Why would anyone choose to get in melee when they can just sit back and shoot them without having to be subject to offensive-overwatch?

Overwatch isn't a problem. Beta strikes are.

Martel732 wrote:
Overwatch isn't a problem. Beta strikes are.

Exactly this. CC is like a pre-flop all in as short stack with 6-10 offsuit against pocket aces going for a straight on the river.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Orks should definitely be a shooty faction, they frikkin' love themselves some dakka! Sure, they shouldn't be very accurate, but quantity is a quality of its own and that's where orks should shine. GW need to redo Orks, and I for one hope they get big buffs in their codex.

I also think all factions should have solid shooting, as far as I know there's nothing in the fluff that says they shouldn't.

Yeah the changes to twin linked hurt orks pretty bad

The main problem with the risk and rewards system for CC is bad because:
1. if you fail charge distance roll, enemy unit gets a free overwatch
2. unless your charging unit had decent melee gear, assault really doesnt do much damage.
3. if you dont wipe your target, the target unit falls back next turn, showing you in a rain of fire.
4. if you do wipe your target, youre going to get showered in a rain of fire.

What CC had going prior to 8thed is:
1. you can lock in a potentially deadly unit for few turns
2. you can 'hide' your units getting fired upon by charging a unit that cant hurt you back
3. you can make absurd movement cia hit and run, sweeping advance, consolidate, etc. this allowed you to potentially reposition to, again, avoid being fire upon so openly the upcoming enemy shooting phase

 skchsan wrote:


Yeah the changes to twin linked hurt orks pretty bad

How does getting more hits on average hurt Orks?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Yeah the changes to twin linked hurt orks pretty bad

How does getting more hits on average hurt Orks?

Because they basically got the same number of hits while other armies almost doubled them up. Twin anti infantry weapons are really hurtful for the greenskins but all ork twin weapons are basically capable of the same damage than the previous edition while being more fragile (bike that cannot jink anymore) or utterly overcosted (buggies and koptas).

Lanrak wrote:
Close combat and ranged attacks could work well together in 40k if they had different tactical roles.(EG if they had the same tactical loading as modern warfare.)

But while its all about killing stuff, 'unmodified to hit 'ranged weapons are at a serious advantage, compared to close combat.

Not to mention the fact that melee happens in both player's turns. The shooting army gets to shoot, gets to overwatch, and then gets to hit in melee. Before deciding next turn to fall back and open up the charging unit to shooting again.

Another problem with cc armies lke orks is their lack of snipers to ignore character rules. How do we deal with enemy snipers in bubble wrap or enemy hq units who sit back and give bonuses to armies? We do not because we can't. All while every turn they sniper our characters and dwindle us down. There, at the very least, shoukd be a body guard rule that means if ork characters are in a blobmof 30 they get -1 to hit for every 10 orks or something or that on a 3+ an ork boy gets in the way and sves the warboss. Just sick of having no saves because the snipers alsomignore invuln saves.

 lolman1c wrote:
Another problem with cc armies lke orks is their lack of snipers to ignore character rules. How do we deal with enemy snipers in bubble wrap or enemy hq units who sit back and give bonuses to armies? We do not because we can't. All while every turn they sniper our characters and dwindle us down. There, at the very least, shoukd be a body guard rule that means if ork characters are in a blobmof 30 they get -1 to hit for every 10 orks or something or that on a 3+ an ork boy gets in the way and sves the warboss. Just sick of having no saves because the snipers alsomignore invuln saves.

It could be interesting to see Ork's version of bodyguards in a form of a rule like "meat shield" where a character gets to grab the nearest infantry on a +5 to take their hits for them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Yeah the changes to twin linked hurt orks pretty bad

How does getting more hits on average hurt Orks?

It's also worth mentioning that many SPESS MERRENZ twin weapons are actually cheaper than two of that same weapon (assault cannons especially), whereas ork twin weapons actually cost MORE than two of that same weapon for some unknowable reason. Maybe GW is just really really bad at math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Another problem with cc armies lke orks is their lack of snipers to ignore character rules. How do we deal with enemy snipers in bubble wrap or enemy hq units who sit back and give bonuses to armies? We do not because we can't. All while every turn they sniper our characters and dwindle us down. There, at the very least, shoukd be a body guard rule that means if ork characters are in a blobmof 30 they get -1 to hit for every 10 orks or something or that on a 3+ an ork boy gets in the way and sves the warboss. Just sick of having no saves because the snipers alsomignore invuln saves.

It could be interesting to see Ork's version of bodyguards in a form of a rule like "meat shield" where a character gets to grab the nearest infantry on a +5 to take their hits for them.

I definitely think some form of 'look out sir' should come back. I honestly don't much care about snipers - I don't face them too much, and a wound or 2 usually isn't a big problem, as I usually have a painboy. My big beef with character rules is how a dude with a thunderhammer can basically auto-delete any ork character out of mega armor. No saves, no chance, just dead. Whenever I try to bring zhardsnark, he just gets charged by some random terminator squad and just dies.

It's hard to completely insulate warbossi from combat, as they live for combat. But it's annoying to see my warlord just get bonked and die over and over again, and my only choice to keep that from happening is to basically sit in the back, which is boring. So I just always take mega armor and roll them 5s!

 Kap'n Krump wrote:


And I certainly don't see how "you can only fall back on a 4+" would require an overhaul. It's literally that simple. It's a stupid and lazy rule, but it certainly wouldn't require much in the way of revisions, which is why I think it the best we could reasonably hope for.

I don't necessarily disagree with the fall back on a 4+ idea, but it would still require at least some overhaul. What would you do with units like Wyches, for example, that already require the unit to win a roll-off in order to be able to fall back. Would the falling back unit need to roll a 4+ to attempt to escape, and then win a roll-off, or would tarpit units effectively lose their ability? Would units with FLY fall back more easily? The reason they can still shoot after falling back is presumably that flying lets them escape the enemy with minimal effort, so shouldn't this carry through to the roll to escape?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:


I definitely think some form of 'look out sir' should come back. I honestly don't much care about snipers - I don't face them too much, and a wound or 2 usually isn't a big problem, as I usually have a painboy. My big beef with character rules is how a dude with a thunderhammer can basically auto-delete any ork character out of mega armor. No saves, no chance, just dead. Whenever I try to bring zhardsnark, he just gets charged by some random terminator squad and just dies.

It's hard to completely insulate warbossi from combat, as they live for combat. But it's annoying to see my warlord just get bonked and die over and over again, and my only choice to keep that from happening is to basically sit in the back, which is boring. So I just always take mega armor and roll them 5s!

I don't know how to feel on this. On the one hand, it does seem unfair that characters are largely protected from shooting, but their existence as individual units leaves them little protection from close combat. On the other hand, in the last edition, your opponent could force your character in CC to either personally take hits, or be effectively excluded from combat, by issuing a challenge, so it's not that huge a change.

You are correct, challenges were a thing last edition, and I can see how the new CC rules are a bit of a translation from that. But, at least in the case of orks, there are 2 big differences:

The first was sacrificial characters. In the case of, say, a dreadknight, I could have a nob take the challenge, and the warboss and everyone else could pound it while the nob got murderized. This was, at best, a delaying tactic, but it was an option.

The second was say, in the case of a terminator squad, my warboss would only have to face off v. the terminator sergeant, NOT his entire squad. And a warboss v. one terminator is a fight I can win. A warboss v. 5+ terminators is a fight I cannot.

The problem is, currently, I have NO options. If one terminator makes it to CC with my warboss, and all his buddies pile in behind him, it's game over. And maybe I'm just bad at the game, but I find it extremely difficult to effectively screen my warboss in melee AND let him actually participate in it.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Yeah the changes to twin linked hurt orks pretty bad

How does getting more hits on average hurt Orks?

It's also worth mentioning that many SPESS MERRENZ twin weapons are actually cheaper than two of that same weapon (assault cannons especially), whereas ork twin weapons actually cost MORE than two of that same weapon for some unknowable reason. Maybe GW is just really really bad at math.

If by "many" you mean "Twin Assault Cannons", sure. What else is cheaper? Twin Las is the same cost as two, twin Plasma is the same as two and so on. AFAIK the Assault Cannon is the sole exception for some reason.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Yeah the changes to twin linked hurt orks pretty bad

How does getting more hits on average hurt Orks?

It's also worth mentioning that many SPESS MERRENZ twin weapons are actually cheaper than two of that same weapon (assault cannons especially), whereas ork twin weapons actually cost MORE than two of that same weapon for some unknowable reason. Maybe GW is just really really bad at math.

If by "many" you mean "Twin Assault Cannons", sure. What else is cheaper? Twin Las is the same cost as two, twin Plasma is the same as two and so on. AFAIK the Assault Cannon is the sole exception for some reason.

The reduction in AC's cost comes from its nerf of removal of rending mechanics. It was a true TAC ranged weapon, being able to hurt light infantries to AV 14 vehicles all alike. Now it only serves as light-heavy infantry hunter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
You are correct, challenges were a thing last edition, and I can see how the new CC rules are a bit of a translation from that. But, at least in the case of orks, there are 2 big differences:

The first was sacrificial characters. In the case of, say, a dreadknight, I could have a nob take the challenge, and the warboss and everyone else could pound it while the nob got murderized. This was, at best, a delaying tactic, but it was an option.

The second was say, in the case of a terminator squad, my warboss would only have to face off v. the terminator sergeant, NOT his entire squad. And a warboss v. one terminator is a fight I can win. A warboss v. 5+ terminators is a fight I cannot.

The problem is, currently, I have NO options. If one terminator makes it to CC with my warboss, and all his buddies pile in behind him, it's game over. And maybe I'm just bad at the game, but I find it extremely difficult to effectively screen my warboss in melee AND let him actually participate in it.

With the removal of initiative stats, dem power klaws can really shred enemies - its really about positioning now.

This post really should be in tactics, but what you need to do is keep him just out side of 2" away from your models in your screening unit during defense. If he did not charge your warboss he is still not eligible to attack your warboss, even after pile in. If he piles in within 1" of your screening model and 2" of your warboss, the warboss is allowed to make free attacks without the termies being allowed to allocate their attacks onto the warboss.

During your offense, you should be charging in with your screen first to withstand the overwatch. Then, you charge in with your warboss. The changes to IC's and attaching them to units hurt characters charging a bit - it would be nice if there was a 'heroic intervention' like mechanics for characters jumping into the foray of his lackies, so you'll still do need to charge within 1" of the target charge. Make sure to set up your charge with the screen so that you leave room for your warboss to charge in as well. Since pile in happens after all eligible charges have been made, this should not be too big of an issue.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Yeah the changes to twin linked hurt orks pretty bad

How does getting more hits on average hurt Orks?

It's also worth mentioning that many SPESS MERRENZ twin weapons are actually cheaper than two of that same weapon (assault cannons especially), whereas ork twin weapons actually cost MORE than two of that same weapon for some unknowable reason. Maybe GW is just really really bad at math.

If by "many" you mean "Twin Assault Cannons", sure. What else is cheaper? Twin Las is the same cost as two, twin Plasma is the same as two and so on. AFAIK the Assault Cannon is the sole exception for some reason.

A fair point. many in this case is 2. Assault cannons and heavy plasma cannons are what I'm aware of - HPCs are especially funny as the first is 30, and 2 is 34. Still, orks only have 2 twin options, and they're both more than double priced of the single weapon, and marine twin weapons at LEAST are all twice the price of a normal weapon, and 2 are curiously underpriced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

With the removal of initiative stats, dem power klaws can really shred enemies - its really about positioning now.

This post really should be in tactics, but what you need to do is keep him just out side of 2" away from your models in your screening unit during defense. If he did not charge your warboss he is still not eligible to attack your warboss, even after pile in. If he piles in within 1" of your screening model and 2" of your warboss, the warboss is allowed to make free attacks without the termies being allowed to allocate their attacks onto the warboss.

During your offense, you should be charging in with your screen first to withstand the overwatch. Then, you charge in with your warboss. The changes to IC's and attaching them to units hurt characters charging a bit - it would be nice if there was a 'heroic intervention' like mechanics for characters jumping into the foray of his lackies, so you'll still do need to charge within 1" of the target charge. Make sure to set up your charge with the screen so that you leave room for your warboss to charge in as well. Since pile in happens after all eligible charges have been made, this should not be too big of an issue.

You're not wrong, I did and have made mistakes with positioning, which I can try to do better with. I suppose my biggest issue is I try to charge characters at a flank on a unit, rather than make room for them, as it seems a bit more natural, I suppose. But even zhardsnark isn't 2" wide, so he should be able to fit. It's a lesson harshly learned, I suppose, but I feel it character rules can be a bit punishing for making a rather minor positioning mistake.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Yeah the changes to twin linked hurt orks pretty bad

How does getting more hits on average hurt Orks?

It's also worth mentioning that many SPESS MERRENZ twin weapons are actually cheaper than two of that same weapon (assault cannons especially), whereas ork twin weapons actually cost MORE than two of that same weapon for some unknowable reason. Maybe GW is just really really bad at math.

If by "many" you mean "Twin Assault Cannons", sure. What else is cheaper? Twin Las is the same cost as two, twin Plasma is the same as two and so on. AFAIK the Assault Cannon is the sole exception for some reason.

I will note that twin items are not always just 2x single gun for other faction, the difference is they tend to be that or LESS, where as orks are always >2x single gun
Big shoota = 6, twin big shoota 14
Rokkit = 12, twin rokkit = 28
Shoota = 0, kustom shoota = 4

For other factions
Marines(sisters for Multimelta, HB)
Assault cannon = 21, twin = 35
heavy bolter = 10, twin = 17
LAscannon = 25, twin = 50
Bolter = 0, twin bolter/storm = 2
Heavy Flamer = 17, twin = 34
Heavy Plasma cannon = 30, twin = 34
Multimelta = 27, twin = 54

Eldar
Missile Launcher 25, twin 50
Brightlance 20, twin 40
Scatter laser 15, twin 30
Shuriken cannon 12, twin 24
Shuriken Catapult 0, twin 10
Starcannon 30, twin 60

Dark Eldar
Liquefier gun = 13, twin 26

Necrons
Heavy Guass cannon 32 twin 64

Admech
Heavy phosphor blaster 15, twin 30

IG
Heavy bolter 8, twin 14
Heavy flamer 17, twin 30

GSC
Autocannon 15, twin 33

So orks and GSC are the only armies where a twin weapon costs more than 2 of the same weapon. most cost straight double, and Marines have 3 that cost less than double.

They really didn't want us to shoot did they? I mean twic rocket do like 2 shots! You would think orks would fire like 6 of them so we can hit ag least 1 XD. If the current index was what it is like to be an Ork in the 40k universe then they would have become extinct and squished by every other race. XD

I tend to favor gunline armies and disdain melee combat (it seems pretty silly to charge a line of machine gun and not expect to get torn to pieces).

However, I think GW made a grave mistake giving armies rules that let them fall back AND shoot - that sort of thing should remain a Strategm, so you can at best only get one unit out of trouble at a time if they do get swarmed.

I also think there should be a form of reverse overwatch allows melee units to take a free swing at troops that attempt to fall back (hitting on 6's).

Finally, for those units that depend on melee - like orks - I hope we see some strategms to counter falling back. Say, something like "(1 CP) Run them down - If an enemy unit starting within 1" of one of your units moves or advances, afterwards you may move or advance to manuever into base to base contact with the same enemy unit. If you cannot reach base to base contact, you must move as close as possible. This movement does not trigger overwatch. "

 Stormonu wrote:
it seems pretty silly to charge a line of machine gun and not expect to get torn to pieces.

That's exactly what's depicted by overwatch.

Furthermore, a machine gun can't manuever against a fast moving target in close range. This is precisely why you have side arms or CQC oriented SMG's with short muzzle and foldable stock. So I have no idea what you're talking about. A knife at close range wins vs guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
However, I think GW made a grave mistake giving armies rules that let them fall back AND shoot - that sort of thing should remain a Strategm, so you can at best only get one unit out of trouble at a time if they do get swarmed.

It's not so much the unit thats falling back, but the units around that falling back unit that now can shoot down the unit that was left behind from the fall back is the problem.

I can see Twin Weapons being cheaper than two regular weapons. Two regular weapons can split fire, one Twin Weapon CANNOT.

But not a large reduction, and CERTAINLY not more expensive.

 skchsan wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
it seems pretty silly to charge a line of machine gun and not expect to get torn to pieces.

That's exactly what's depicted by overwatch.

Furthermore, a machine gun can't manuever against a fast moving target in close range. This is precisely why you have side arms or CQC oriented SMG's with short muzzle and foldable stock. So I have no idea what you're talking about. A knife at close range wins vs guns.

I can put a short barrel and fold the stock of a C9 machinegun and end up with a gun about the length of a C8 which what we use for CQB, I'd still have 200 rounds and a decent caliber, too.