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.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Well, I mean, first, I didn't say that and I'm really curious as to how you thought it was implied, lol.

Shooting was so worthless in 3rd Edition, for example, that it created entirely new styles of play (none of which were much fun).

 Rippy wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.

But that's like, your opinion, man

This close combat news is well received! So far every new item, I have liked. How many of these GW reveals before the actual release?

I agree that meele combat is the less interactive aspect of all of the Warhammer interations, because no player did anything after the charges.

But I'll be lying if is not where all the epic histories about my games have happened, and the part that I most enjoy. The tension! The drama! The Chaos Lord being slain by a Goblin!

I'd expect they are running out of topics to make articles about and they said they would post an article a day up to release. Hopefully this means either this weekend or next weekend we get pre-orders or just a flat out release of everything online.

"Here's all the rules and codexs, run and be free my bloodthirsty children." ~GW

CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.

A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

I'm ok with these changes to charging and Fighting as long as it's with the context I no longer have to take models off the front of a unit. In AoS the owner of the unit gets to choose what models come off, and how this is what they do for 8th ed 40k. To me that would sound about right.


If they kept casualties off the front of units, then assault is dead in the water.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.

A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.

But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.

 Lockark wrote:
I'm ok with these changes to charging and Fighting as long as it's with the context I no longer have to take models off the front of a unit. In AoS the owner of the unit gets to choose what models come off, and how this is what they do for 8th ed 40k.

I'm okay with that as long as you are first required to apply any subsequent wounds to a wounded multi-wound-model first. We don't want to revive the wound shenanigans of 5th edition (ie, nob bikers).

 davou wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Well, I mean, first, I didn't say that and I'm really curious as to how you thought it was implied, lol.

Shooting was so worthless in 3rd Edition, for example, that it created entirely new styles of play (none of which were much fun).

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

 Lockark wrote:
I'm ok with these changes to charging and Fighting as long as it's with the context I no longer have to take models off the front of a unit. In AoS the owner of the unit gets to choose what models come off, and how this is what they do for 8th ed 40k. To me that would sound about right.


If they kept casualties off the front of units, then assault is dead in the water.

This

There is also a factor of people's skill level , if your a really good player you could play a less effective army and still win , if your always winning and your playing equal armies then you need to hamper your army or you will be that guy ,which is made so much worse if your a good player and a good army < this is the really problem with balance . I'm really glad they have kept in more randomness as it creates those moments that everybody cares about . In my experience when fighting close combat armies it's been a race against time to see if I could kill them before they got to me which has been a lot of fun ,if the new rules can make this feel like a close run thing I will be happy

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.

A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.

But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.

They said vehicles will have statlines like troops. So it's gonna be fixed.

If it doesn't wield a chainsword, it doesn't belong in 40K. Shooting should come second to assault always.

On a more serious note, it should actually be 50/50 mix of shooting and assault. Not because I actually believe that, but some people buy shooty armies I guess, so they need some love too.

Does anyone have any confirmation about character not being able to join units? This is a real deal breaker for me. How the hell are characters supposed to get around the battlefield by themselves? Why would they not be able to join units?

I like assault as decisive, risky, and an option you might choose rather than a given. 40K's never done that so well.

I really think shooting-focused armies are going to be fine. Tau will probably keep Coordinated Firepower, meaning any unit charging them is probably going to be wiped out by Overwatch. Their monsters are probably going to resilient as hell.

Necrons are just going to refuse to die like usual (and their CC units might actually see use). Wraiths are probably still going to be insane.

Guard might actually have to employ a different tactic than "We have reserves" (hopefully their tanks will be quite good).

My Crimson Fists (that rarely, if ever, attempted to get in combat) will be getting some units like Tactical Terminators dusted off. I might even make an Assault Squad for them (with a Power Fist on the Sergeant no less!). I might actually take a second look at Assault Centurions as well. I have a Dreadnought(basically was an afterthought from wanting the Terminator Captain in the Start Collecting box and another Tactical Squad) that I'm itching to start building now so he can see play. I haven't used a SM Dreadnought EVER since they sucked so bad. And that always made me sad since I have always loved the Angry Washing Machine. I really hope ramming is an actual attack that can be done against Troops. I can't wait to slam a Rhino into a blob of Orks.

In short, if you wanted to play your army exactly how you did in 7e without modification, you are probably going to be disappointed. But there are a lot of people whose armies just became viable for the first time in two editions. Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.

And let's not forget, if the game really ends up broken in favor of Assault (Spoiler: it won't), they can always change some of the rules based on feedback.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

If that's still a rule, it's likely specific to certain vehicles.

A 10/10/10 vehicle can be simplified to a single T/SV value, while a 12/10/10 may gain a special rule that improves their front save. That way differential vehicle armor doesn't need to be part of the core rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.

A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.

But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.

They said vehicles will have statlines like troops. So it's gonna be fixed.

A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.

 andysonic1 wrote:
I'd expect they are running out of topics to make articles about and they said they would post an article a day up to release. Hopefully this means either this weekend or next weekend we get pre-orders or just a flat out release of everything online.

"Here's all the rules and codexs, run and be free my bloodthirsty children." ~GW

In a game with nearly thirty existing factions I don't think there short of stuff to write about

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really think shooting-focused armies are going to be fine. Tau will probably keep Coordinated Firepower, meaning any unit charging them is probably going to be wiped out by Overwatch. Their monsters are probably going to resilient as hell.

Necrons are just going to refuse to die like usual (and their CC units might actually see use). Wraiths are probably still going to be insane.

Guard might actually have to employ a different tactic than "We have reserves" (hopefully their tanks will be quite good).

My Crimson Fists (that rarely, if ever, attempted to get in combat) will be getting some units like Tactical Terminators dusted off. I might even make an Assault Squad for them (with a Power Fist on the Sergeant no less!). I might actually take a second look at Assault Centurions as well. I have a Dreadnought(basically was an afterthought from wanting the Terminator Captain in the Start Collecting box and another Tactical Squad) that I'm itching to start building now so he can see play. I haven't used a SM Dreadnought EVER since they sucked so bad. And that always made me sad since I have always loved the Angry Washing Machine. I really hope ramming is an actual attack that can be done against Troops. I can't wait to slam a Rhino into a blob of Orks.

In short, if you wanted to play your army exactly how you did in 7e without modification, you are probably going to be disappointed. But there are a lot of people whose armies just became viable for the first time in two editions. Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.

And let's not forget, if the game really ends up broken in favor of Assault (Spoiler: it won't), they can always change some of the rules based on feedback.

This. Many people have forgotten, or just weren't around for previous times it happened, edition changes almost always necessitated a shake-up in tactics for most armies. So, it sounds like certain armies wont be able to sit on their laurels in the deployment zone and blast armies apart across the table. As a player of one of those armies, that -doesn't- use that tactic, this is a good thing. Change can be good. Variety can be good. It may take a game or two, or several before we find what what works for our armies, playstyles and preferred tactics, but on the whole, the rules as we currently know them look very promising. And if the ones the AoS players say are current in AoS, port over to 40k - assault from transports, assault from reserve/deep strike, and others, then this is shaping up to be an exciting shift in the game.

Random charge distance can still go die in a fire, though.

 Azreal13 wrote:


A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.

...but would invalidate the simplification with a pile of exceptions (it's a 12-page ruleset remember!). Banking on one statline, apart from special vehicles (perhaps Russ has front bonus), but most being fixed.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really think shooting-focused armies are going to be fine. Tau will probably keep Coordinated Firepower, meaning any unit charging them is probably going to be wiped out by Overwatch. Their monsters are probably going to resilient as hell.

Necrons are just going to refuse to die like usual (and their CC units might actually see use). Wraiths are probably still going to be insane.

Guard might actually have to employ a different tactic than "We have reserves" (hopefully their tanks will be quite good).

My Crimson Fists (that rarely, if ever, attempted to get in combat) will be getting some units like Tactical Terminators dusted off. I might even make an Assault Squad for them (with a Power Fist on the Sergeant no less!). I might actually take a second look at Assault Centurions as well. I have a Dreadnought(basically was an afterthought from wanting the Terminator Captain in the Start Collecting box and another Tactical Squad) that I'm itching to start building now so he can see play. I haven't used a SM Dreadnought EVER since they sucked so bad. And that always made me sad since I have always loved the Angry Washing Machine. I really hope ramming is an actual attack that can be done against Troops. I can't wait to slam a Rhino into a blob of Orks.

In short, if you wanted to play your army exactly how you did in 7e without modification, you are probably going to be disappointed. But there are a lot of people whose armies just became viable for the first time in two editions. Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.

And let's not forget, if the game really ends up broken in favor of Assault (Spoiler: it won't), they can always change some of the rules based on feedback.

I'm expecting Necrons to get resurrection rules in the Command phase (or whatever the Hero Phase equivalent will be called) similar to Deathrattle in AoS. Maybe Warriors return d6 models, Immortals d3, and Lychguard/Praetorians 1 model per turn.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.

As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.

 matphat wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.

As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.

I think the ability to bounce into more assaults and Initiative being gone will help Orks out quite a bit. I am skeptical, but I would love to see them be decent.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.

...but would invalidate the simplification with a pile of exceptions (it's a 12-page ruleset remember!). Banking on one statline, apart from special vehicles (perhaps Russ has front bonus), but most being fixed.

Either way, there's no evidence to suggest that there isn't some mechanism, and vehicles sharing a statline isn't enough info to make the leap.

I'm not going to argue about 'evidence' when there is none and we've but seen snippets of the whole. We'll know in a few weeks.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.

...but would invalidate the simplification with a pile of exceptions (it's a 12-page ruleset remember!). Banking on one statline, apart from special vehicles (perhaps Russ has front bonus), but most being fixed.

Such thing could be easily represented on unit cards - simple diagram showing vehicle's facings and then telling how much Tougness/Save is worse from which angle. That would hardly make the game unplayably complex, although it does kinda make giving up AV system pointless.

Any way, if Vehicle facings are not simulated by any means, it is going to lead much visual silliness - smart thing to do would be always to turn the tank sideways to the enemy to maximize his shooting/charge distance.

If they do Datafaxes again, yeaaaah buoyyyyy

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I'm not going to argue about 'evidence' when there is none and we've but seen snippets of the whole. We'll know in a few weeks.

So basically, me saying

But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.

Was the correct answer and all the back and forth about how it's going to be fixed and compound rules for vehicle keywords being contrary to the 12 page simplification was a waste of time then? FFS.

A Leman Russ moving 16"? That would be nice to have again.

Backfire wrote:

Such thing could be easily represented on unit cards - simple diagram showing vehicle's facings and then telling how much Tougness/Save is worse from which angle. That would hardly make the game unplayably complex, although it does kinda make giving up AV system pointless.

Any way, if Vehicle facings are not simulated by any means, it is going to lead much visual silliness - smart thing to do would be always to turn the tank sideways to the enemy to maximize his shooting/charge distance.

They had something similar in 2nd edition and it was a bit clumsy. Id be fine with flat directional modifier ONLY if they applied to everything of a certain base sIze or more and not just vehicles otherwise we're back to screwing over vehicles compared with them.