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.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/02/find-out-how-the-latest-warhammer-40000-faqs-affect-your-favourite-faction/

Strikes First and Strikes Last

As one of the main areas where interpretations of the rules differed, the Studio team has supplied a comprehensive visual guide to determining the order in which models fight when affected by ‘Always Strike First’ and ‘Always Strike Last’ abilities or both. In short, each combat is split into three separate steps:

* Players take it in turns to select units affected by ‘strikes first’ abilities, including those that have charged, one at a time, beginning with the player whose turn it is.
* Players take it in turns to select units either affected by no ‘strikes first’ or ‘strikes last’ abilities, or affected by both, one at a time, beginning with the player whose turn it isn’t.
* Players take it in turns to select units affected by ‘strikes last’ abilities, one at a time, beginning with the player whose turn it is.

For a guide including picture references and examples, with words from Warhammer 40,000 rules master Robin Cruddace, check out the FAQs

Drukhari

Currently enjoying a dominant position across many tournaments, the dark denizens of Commorragh have seen a few tweaks. In particular:

* The Dark Technomancers Obsession for custom Covens no longer impacts weapons that automatically hit.
* Several questions have been answered regarding ‘exploding’ hits (rolls that generate additional hits on a certain result) and how they interact with some Character upgrades.

Deep Striking and Reserves

Due to some quirky interactions with vertical distances (and some fascinating Pythagorean loopholes), certain units and Vehicles could be charged easier than others by units arriving from teleportation chambers or other similar rules.

As much as we’re fond of bringing ancient geometry to our tabletop battles, it didn’t treat all models fairly. To ensure there’s a level playing field the Studio team have clarified these distances. Now, you’ll always have to make that 9” charge to reach your foe on the turn you arrive.

Imperial Armour

To bring them up to speed with the units from their recent codexes, Forge World miniatures for the Death Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and more will be gaining the appropriate faction abilities and keywords where necessary. That means you can field your Secutarii straight away without needing to worry about them falling behind their comrades.

Sounds like they really need to bring back Initiative as a stat...

They fixed Dreadclaws and the Karybdis. They work like drop pods should now. Groovy.

Is there no AdMech FAQ?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Sounds like they really need to bring back Initiative as a stat...

Lol indeed..

Not yet.

 xttz wrote:
Is there no AdMech FAQ?

No, as ther codex hasn't been out for four weeks yet. From Warhammer Community:

A note about FAQs: We’ll be publishing the first FAQ for new battletomes and codexes four weeks after the book arrives, instead of two, moving forward. This gives the Studio team a little more time to collect feedback and make sure they’re not missing anything. This includes the new Space Marines and Necrons codexes.

What a bone headed move it was for them to remove initiative lol.

They need to revert the to wound chart back to 7th with the exception that 6's always wound.

They need to bring initiative back.

They need to return to USR's which would now be much improved using the keyword system.

I'd also like to see armor save mod caps as the number of 1+ or better saves is getting rediculous.

 Ghaz wrote:

No, as ther codex hasn't been out for four weeks yet.

Ah cheers I missed that.

For Dark Eldar they also added 10pts to both Drazhar & Raiders, and removed the extra 2CP from taking Patrol detachments

They nerfed all these newly-worded Strike Last rules. Tempormortis on a charging unit lets it strike in normal order instead of dead last.

 Red Corsair wrote:
What a bone headed move it was for them to remove initiative lol.

They need to revert the to wound chart back to 7th with the exception that 6's always wound.

They need to bring initiative back.

They need to return to USR's which would now be much improved using the keyword system.

I'd also like to see armor save mod caps as the number of 1+ or better saves is getting rediculous.

Imitative would be completely unnecessary, because nothing will default to a stat nor should it as that was awful for armies with low initiative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vovin wrote:
They nerfed all these newly-worded Strike Last rules. Tempormortis on a charging unit lets it strike in normal order instead of dead last.

That still has an effect as the charging unit would go after the defender picks a unit to fight.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

That still has an effect as the charging unit would go after the defender picks a unit to fight.

Yes, but it is still a far cry from "attack after all other units and no rule in the game can change this."

 Red Corsair wrote:
What a bone headed move it was for them to remove initiative lol.

They need to revert the to wound chart back to 7th with the exception that 6's always wound.

They need to bring initiative back.

They need to return to USR's which would now be much improved using the keyword system.

I'd also like to see armor save mod caps as the number of 1+ or better saves is getting rediculous.

Initiative was an absolutely idiotic mechanic. You want to talk about dumbing the game down and removing tactical depth? Nothing was worse on that front than initiative. It made combat completely non-interactive.

Every combat under initiative is just filling in a spreadsheet. You could literally replace WS, #of attacks, initiative, S, and T with 'Combat Stat' and just whoever's number is higher wins and it would not be meaningfully different than combat with initiative was.

The 7th edition wound chart was worse than what you're suggesting. There would be absolutely no benefit to doing that. Are you really that bothered that S6 wounds T8 on a 5 rather than a 6?

Some USRs would actually be helpful, but getting back to older editions 90 pages of USRs would just end up with all the same problems they had before.

No.

7th edition was trash and we should avoid using any rules from it on principle. Initiative ESPECIALLY is a terrible idea.

 Ghaz wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Is there no AdMech FAQ?

No, as ther codex hasn't been out for four weeks yet. From Warhammer Community:

A note about FAQs: We’ll be publishing the first FAQ for new battletomes and codexes four weeks after the book arrives, instead of two, moving forward. This gives the Studio team a little more time to collect feedback and make sure they’re not missing anything. This includes the new Space Marines and Necrons codexes.

Oh. Wasn't that week before?

Well hopefully nobody planning to take sister walkers to tournament. 240/model for 4 weeks. Otoh　immune to dam1 weapons if warcom artlcle didn't omit minimum.

Intiative doesn't have to be part of the profile. It could work like this:

Every unit has a base initiave of 0, Charge gives +1, Strike First +1, Strike Last -1, there is room for further modificators but it shouldn't be overused. Players alternate picking units but have to forfeit their right when the opposing player still has any units with a higher initiative.

It is simple, clear, easy to learn, intuitive, there is no room for rules discussions and it allows for meaningful interactions on the battlefield with buffs and counterbuffs.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Sounds like they really need to bring back Initiative as a stat...

No. Last time they did that, they still had strike first and strike last rules and it was even dumber.

ERJAK wrote:
Are you really that bothered that S6 wounds T8 on a 5 rather than a 6?

Yes! Haven't you been paying attention? It's because of the current To Wound chart that we have this weird situation where the most effective way to kill tanks is by spamming multi-shot mid-strength mid-damage weapons, because single shot so-called anti-tank weapons weren't cutting it.

There are at least two other threads in this sub-forum alone discussing why the 8th/9th To Wound chart is a big problem.

 Red Corsair wrote:
What a bone headed move it was for them to remove initiative lol.

They need to revert the to wound chart back to 7th with the exception that 6's always wound.

They need to bring initiative back.

They need to return to USR's which would now be much improved using the keyword system.

I'd also like to see armor save mod caps as the number of 1+ or better saves is getting rediculous.

AoS does just fine with no Ini stat, I believe the two systems are exactly the same, why is 40K having an issue?

And screw that wound chart. I never, ever want to see that thing again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Are you really that bothered that S6 wounds T8 on a 5 rather than a 6?

Yes! Haven't you been paying attention? It's because of the current To Wound chart that we have this weird situation where the most effective way to kill tanks is by spamming multi-shot mid-strength mid-damage weapons, because single shot so-called anti-tank weapons weren't cutting it.

There are at least two other threads in this sub-forum alone discussing why the 8th/9th To Wound chart is a big problem.

I'd argue it's less the wound chart specifically and more the issue that vehicles are more vulnerable to weapons of all types in general since they moved away from the AV chart.

While I like how vehicles work now, they probably do need a damage reduction of some kind against D2 and lower weapons. Maybe like the previewed Paragon Warsuit ability and make it a flat -1D but make it only work on weapons that are D1 or D2?

I don't know. I like the wounding chart in most situations, save for how it handles tanks and monsters who don't feel durable enough and just upping wound counts and/or saves feels wrong.

Not more rules on top of what they already have. This is a general problem with the game that should be solved with a general change.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not more rules on top of what they already have. This is a general problem with the game that should be solved with a general change.

Like I said, I don't think the issue is specifically the chart, but more the move from AV values which were immune to certain strength values. I mean most tanks were AV 11 or 12 minimum (save for the back) so it's not really a shock that they feel squishier now than ever, especially when they cost more to boot.

I don't think the wounds chart is the right answer though because it creates negative game experiences for players, especially new ones, who can find out they didn't bring the right guns to a game by accident to pick up games or tournaments. I get we want some level of "realism" in our space fantasy game where minature rocket propelled grenades are used as common ammunition but at the same time the game needs to have a certain level of balance.

Honestly it feels like it should be a rule rolled into the Vehicle and Monster keyword much like how they get certain rules around shooting. Then again, I'm not sure of the best answer to fix the issue, I was just offering an idea off the cuff, but I don't think the answer is the old wounds chart.

High S and a lot of shots killed vehicles in 6th and 7 th Edition already, it's not a problem of the current wound chart alone. Remember scatter Lasers. Assault cannons on my Obliterators were the best weapon against everything, if I didn't have to change every turn I would have rarely used something else .

Togusa wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
What a bone headed move it was for them to remove initiative lol.

They need to revert the to wound chart back to 7th with the exception that 6's always wound.

They need to bring initiative back.

They need to return to USR's which would now be much improved using the keyword system.

I'd also like to see armor save mod caps as the number of 1+ or better saves is getting rediculous.

AoS does just fine with no Ini stat, I believe the two systems are exactly the same, why is 40K having an issue?

And screw that wound chart. I never, ever want to see that thing again.

Given that Age of Silliness is a game that thinks that the skill or toughness of the opponent doesn't matter for how easily you hit or hurt them - and that half of that attitude has infected 40k - you'll forgive me for thinking they don't know what they're doing when it comes to mechanics.

Togusa wrote:

And screw that wound chart. I never, ever want to see that thing again.

We have wound chart. and both are just as easy to remember if you are at least 3 year old.Only difference is how the odds go but then we come into question is is it good for game S9 wounds T5 on 3+ rather than 2+.

 Dysartes wrote:

Togusa wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
What a bone headed move it was for them to remove initiative lol.

They need to revert the to wound chart back to 7th with the exception that 6's always wound.

They need to bring initiative back.

They need to return to USR's which would now be much improved using the keyword system.

I'd also like to see armor save mod caps as the number of 1+ or better saves is getting rediculous.

AoS does just fine with no Ini stat, I believe the two systems are exactly the same, why is 40K having an issue?

And screw that wound chart. I never, ever want to see that thing again.

Given that Age of Silliness is a game that thinks that the skill or toughness of the opponent doesn't matter for how easily you hit or hurt them - and that half of that attitude has infected 40k - you'll forgive me for thinking they don't know what they're doing when it comes to mechanics.

Let's not start throwing stones. That kind of stuff was the same thing I used to hear from the WFB community about how their game was "better" and "more tactical". Both games can aim for different audiences. The more laid back "Dad Gamer" crowd (as HeyWoahTwitch has called it) is perfectly happy with what they have and there is no reason to start being judgmental about other games just because they don't fit some imagined metric of "good" we arbitrarily slap onto things.

The main different with Initiative in AoS is your Charging units don’t get that Always Strike First bit, just pick first if it’s your turn and alternate. Off hand I don’t know of any Always Strike First or Always Strike Last rules, but I would not be at all surprised if some exist.

 Dysartes wrote:

Togusa wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
What a bone headed move it was for them to remove initiative lol.

They need to revert the to wound chart back to 7th with the exception that 6's always wound.

They need to bring initiative back.

They need to return to USR's which would now be much improved using the keyword system.

I'd also like to see armor save mod caps as the number of 1+ or better saves is getting rediculous.

AoS does just fine with no Ini stat, I believe the two systems are exactly the same, why is 40K having an issue?

And screw that wound chart. I never, ever want to see that thing again.

Given that Age of Silliness is a game that thinks that the skill or toughness of the opponent doesn't matter for how easily you hit or hurt them - and that half of that attitude has infected 40k - you'll forgive me for thinking they don't know what they're doing when it comes to mechanics.

Age of Sigmar is the superior game. Far more streamlined, way more fun and not focused on min/max silliness. If 40K went into the AoS system fully, I might come back and play.

 AduroT wrote:
The main different with Initiative in AoS is your Charging units don’t get that Always Strike First bit, just pick first if it’s your turn and alternate. Off hand I don’t know of any Always Strike First or Always Strike Last rules, but I would not be at all surprised if some exist.

Lots of units that attack at the start of combat phase or at the end of combat phase.

These btw result in interesting interaction where unit like daemon prince or whole idoneth army on certain turn attacks at the start of combat phase gets somebody into them DURING combat phase(by pile ins). They can't actually attack at all.

Particularly funny when you have ability that allows you to do 6" pile in if you are within 6". You can move 3.1" from daemon prince, start of combat phase daemon prince attacks, then you pile in and attack and daemon prince is not hitting back.

Which makes theoretical nasty unit that has native "always strikes at the end of combat phase" which would normally be nerf but if you can combine it with pile in 6" if you are within 6"...basically opponent's army does melee and THEN you pile in and attack safe.

In AOS there's 3 steps. Start of combat, combat phase, end of combat phase. Normally you strike at combat phase but some rules put you hit on other 2. You only strike on that stage. Both players alternative during each 3 steps starting with player whose turn is.

Charging itself doesn't give ANY bonus to the ordering except some specific units like Sigvald that attacks at the start of combat phase if he charges.

Also if you have unit that strikes start of combat phase and opponent doesn't then on your turn you attack with that and then you go to normal combat phase and you then get to attack with another unit.

40k isn't actually THAT different but it just gives each charging unit "always strike first". Plus the first "non-strike first" goes to opponent whose turn it isn't.

Togusa wrote:
Age of Sigmar is the superior game. Far more streamlined, way more fun and not focused on min/max silliness. If 40K went into the AoS system fully, I might come back and play.

The thing with this discussion is that for very few people the game system by itself is the one reason why they play 40k. For me the primary reason to bother with 40k instead of anything else is its unique insane/silly universe and the models and rules that describe that setting.

AoS (and WHFB before) is just one of many fantasy settings with little really standing out. If I should ever aspire to torture myself with another hobby that requires painting, why would I pick the one game that shares 40k's biggest drawbacks?

 Jidmah wrote:

Togusa wrote:
Age of Sigmar is the superior game. Far more streamlined, way more fun and not focused on min/max silliness. If 40K went into the AoS system fully, I might come back and play.

The thing with this discussion is that for very few people the game system by itself is the one reason why they play 40k. For me the primary reason to bother with 40k instead of anything else is its unique insane/silly universe and the models and rules that describe that setting.

AoS (and WHFB before) is just one of many fantasy settings with little really standing out. If I should ever aspire to torture myself with another hobby that requires painting, why would I pick the one game that shares 40k's biggest drawbacks?

Compared to everything else out there, AoS is quite unique. I dove headfirst into it last year during the pandemic, looking for an escape from the daily grind. I read the lore, books, started buying models to work on.

I don't know how you see it, but this is how I see it.

40K is a game that has become overrun by the tournament players. Everything is "hyper" balanced, constant rules changes, errata. Some armies got constant power creep while others were forgotten. The setting is boring. Primaris marines got three years worth of releases why other more interesting factions like Tyranids or Eldar got squat. For some reason, Eldar always get op rules that break the game, and Tyranids just get broken rules that suck.

What I've seen with AoS is a fun game, with incredible lore and wonderful world building. Tons of amazing factions, with unique and interesting models, no tournament domination or tryhards (at least at the friendly levels, I don't go to events so make of that what we will.). Lots of different factions have gotten updates and every army is capable of playing the game, even underdog factions are pretty well supported in the rules. The fundamentals of the game are simplistic, yet allow for some complex interactions. Never have I had more fun playing on the tabletop than with this game.

AoS is a game full of creativity and interesting rules. 40K is a game that is as stagnant as the universe it is set in, where anytime something new comes out half the community hates it simply because it doesn't "follow the lore."