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.

[qwave =mercury14 592379 6833347 null]
The Jink thing was in a leaked WD pic I believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If snap firing is -2 BS then assault armies will be hit with a crushing nerf. As well as flyers, especially AV 10 ones.

I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.

39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?

This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen written on Dakka. You sir and a poet and a genius! I may add that to my signiture.

PapaSoul wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

The Jink thing was in a leaked WD pic I believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If snap firing is -2 BS then assault armies will be hit with a crushing nerf. As well as flyers, especially AV 10 ones.

I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

Aww man :/ I ran my eldar Skimmer heavy. Hornets, a fire prism and a nightspinner (not wave serpents, ever) and now they're useless, especially the heavy tanks as they are relient on templates. The snap shots after jinking is complete idiocy, as the improved jink save just makes wave serpents better while nerfing the rest. A wave serpent with holo fields moving flat out now gets a 2+. And then a 2+ to deny pens. I usually dont have a problem with GW, but the state of the game since 6th began has been a lot like the old woman who swallowed the fly. And we all know how that ended.

Let's be optimistic here - If snap shots are changed from Flat BS1 to just a -2 BS modifier, blasts and templates might still get to shoot in 7th edition. After all, how hard is it to spray a flamer when you're in a hurry?

PapaSoul wrote:


Aww man :/ I ran my eldar Skimmer heavy. Hornets, a fire prism and a nightspinner (not wave serpents, ever) and now they're useless, especially the heavy tanks as they are relient on templates. The snap shots after jinking is complete idiocy, as the improved jink save just makes wave serpents better while nerfing the rest. A wave serpent with holo fields moving flat out now gets a 2+. And then a 2+ to deny pens. I usually dont have a problem with GW, but the state of the game since 6th began has been a lot like the old woman who swallowed the fly. And we all know how that ended.

Hornets will be freaking great. They can snap-fire when moving flat-out remember and possibly now hit on a 5+. So they're jinking on a 4+ now (harder to kill), and if they have to jink they can just go flat-out for a 2+ save (HF), and still shoot reasonably well.

Prisms and night spinners have it a bit worse, however they're harder to kill now (3+ jink with HF) and have the range to minimize the amount of fire they take. And Nightspinners are going to say "you made me jink? LOL now I'm moving flat-out for an uber-save".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tetris, I highly doubt we're going to be shooting templates and blasts in overwatch now....

 Davespil wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.

39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?

This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen written on Dakka. You sir and a poet and a genius! I may add that to my signiture.

Yeah, I am in agreement with this. Obviously 40k isn't all about realism, but sometimes the efforts to make things kewl and axesome come across as heavy-handed and childish. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any assault whatsoever, but that it shouldn't be about massive charges and counter charges like this is the Crimean War- which even then, the large horse charges resulted in significant defeat when the Crimean guns just mowed them all down.

Personally, if I was GW I would make assault less and less important in 40k to help differentiate both it and WHFB to encourage people to play both games. With the Psychic Phase returning, there is less and less reason to play WHFB (apart from pretty models).

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.

39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?

But futuristic armor/force field technology and advancements in powered melee weaponry and weapons that can be psychically charged mean they could be just as viable as guns that fire miniature suns.

Especially when that gun that fires miniature suns is thousands of years old and is "maintained" by monks who have no idea how it works...

Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".

All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.

Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.

Maybe armor got really good in 39,299 years too?

It doesn't matter, it's a game. If we want to think "realism" then every battle is an instant nuclear fusion strike from outer orbit.

 Alex C wrote:
But futuristic armor/force field technology and advancements in powered melee weaponry and weapons that can be psychically charged mean they could be just as viable as guns that fire miniature suns.

Especially when that gun that fires miniature suns is thousands of years old and is "maintained" by monks who have no idea how it works...

General warfare and technology 101.
Technological advancements and production methods for armour of any kind will always be outpaced by the ability to make weapons to deal with it. Because the exact same technology that produces the armour can be reduced from a omni-directional defensive measure to one, very sharp and very pointy area.

If you can make futuristic armour with force-fields making it amazeballs, you can also use that same material and the same type of forcefield, reduce it to a singular point at the end of a gun and the gun will win.

 Davespil wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.

This is a great quote, because it goes to the heart of what is fundamentally wrong with 40k i.e it doesn't know what the dakka it wants to be.

Is it a futuristic, small scale, skirmish RPG? Or is it epic in 28mm? D-weapons, riptides, deathstar units etc etc, are neither here nor there. The game suffers from an identity crisis - we get a horrible compromise of big battles and skirmishes crammed into one, and from what I've been reading, it's just gotten worse. This psychic phase will sink the game - it's too bloated for its own good.

You used to be able to play 40k in an hour or two. Now with all these extra phases, dataslate things etc it feels like it could last for days.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You used to be able to play 40k in an hour or two...

That's the biggest problem.

40k at conception involved, at most, a few dozen models a side. In the interests of profits to support a growing company and to expand the game in general, 40k has turned from what was a small scale skirmish game (where even melee made a little sense), to massive armies fighting other massive armies.

Cost of entry issues aside, this change requires a huge change in the way that we play said games.

Suffice to say, the changes between 1st and 7th edition have not in any way catered for this. They've done their best to address balance but never started to address the growing scale of 40k.

We're at the point where some games of 40k involve as many men as some of the smallest original Epic games used to involve- and in 40k style rules, that's hell.

I've got a few concerns that have the eager/dreading getting the rulebook in hand:

1) psykers: how well with this mechanic work? It looks like an overall nerf from the WD info, but given that the design team also states that they did this to boost the effectiveness of librarians, I'm worried how it will all run once we all start getting games under our belt.

2) FMCs... seem like they didn't need help (just won 1st and 2nd at adepticon) yet unless I am missing something, looks like they'll get a big boost this edition

3) Nothing indicating a fix for the 2++ rerolls. Probably my biggest concern... here's hoping the FAQs (if we actually ever get them) fix this if new game mechanics doesn't

4) Consolidating into combat.... I love assault armies... I really really do, but this was unbalancing when he had it before and it will only get worse if we bring it back

5) MOAR RANDUMBS!! We keep increasing the amount of dice rolled each turn relative to models on the table. GW doesn't seem to have streamlined the game (nor do they seem to even understand the difference between making a game simple and making a game elegantly lean in its mechanics)

6) Unbound... wow, its only not funny because its true, it must appeal to some sub-crowd that I don't get who plays with people far different from the gamers I've encountered everywhere (or people simply aren't thinking through the long term implications of this option).... epically dumb idea

7) Allies... we really needed battle brothers to just disappear and the move needs to go away from allies boosting each other. Every indicator says that GW's gone the other way. How do they playtest?

8) Summonings.... I'm not that worried about the fluff silliness this is (yes, I've probably read every BL novel ever, I know it happens... when my SM get to have stats like BL marines, we can talk fluff to rules crossovers), I'm worried about GW's ability to maintain something close to game balance with this. I don't need the game to be chess, but it can't be JFL vs NFL either.

I wasn't playing 40k last time there was consolidating into combat so maybe I'm missing something... But after combat the victor can consolidate 1D6 and try to reach the base of another unit? Shouldn't it be a simple matter for the other unit to just stay a little over 6" away?

 tetrisphreak wrote:

Angelic wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
You can't speed roll shooting phases anymore specifically because wounds are resolved by weapon, so if your flamer knocks some bolter guys out of rapid fire, this would reduce your shots.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. All hits and all wounds can be rolled together. Obviously, different dice per weapon. The rumors I have seen are about a difference at the wound resolution stage, not "to hit" or "to wound", so there is no reduction of "shots". Basically, once you have your wound pool, resolve them in the order you wish, obviously optimal would be shortest to longest. Just do a quick measure after each set of saves to see max number of casualties that can be caused for that weapons range. To be honest, this is the way we were doing it at the beginning of 6th before that FAQ came out that implied a ML increases the kill range of Bolters. It was a little slower, but not much since most of the time we had to separate for S and AP anyway.

Not quite --- the shooting page clearly says to resolve all to-hit and to-wound rolls for each class of weapon one at a time. (I've seen this for myself by reading the tiny print in the White Dwarf preview). This means that if you have, for instance, a flamer and 4 bolters rapid-firing at a unit you do the flamer first, then see who in the unit survived and measure your bolters and fire those next. This can sometimes make it so that you kill a few models with one class of weapon, which leaves another class of weapon in that unit out of range to shoot (whereas in 6th they'd all shoot together). Be that as it may, it does prevent "WTF" moments by allowing a single model in a unit (like an ork boy with a big shoota or a tyranid warrior with a barbed strangler) to increase the effective range of the whole unit.

It sounds like it will add time to games but in my experience most rolls for weapons are being done separately now anyhow (we just save the wounds all at the end). I like this change and it actually makes logical sense.

But it looks like it's going to be a killer to implement though. eg Tac squad w/flamer is shooting at a conga line of something starting at 5" out to 15" max. How do you work out what is firing and at what range. The flamer hits out to 8" fine, but how do you figure out what bolters are firing at RF 12" and which are firing at single shot 24". Will we have to work out multi range weapons one at a time? How will Crisis suits with different weapons work?

I suppose only time and the rules will tell, but not impressed with some of these changes, and impressed with others eg tanks needing 7+

Cheers

Andrew

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
But futuristic armor/force field technology and advancements in powered melee weaponry and weapons that can be psychically charged mean they could be just as viable as guns that fire miniature suns.

Especially when that gun that fires miniature suns is thousands of years old and is "maintained" by monks who have no idea how it works...

General warfare and technology 101.
Technological advancements and production methods for armour of any kind will always be outpaced by the ability to make weapons to deal with it. Because the exact same technology that produces the armour can be reduced from a omni-directional defensive measure to one, very sharp and very pointy area.

If you can make futuristic armour with force-fields making it amazeballs, you can also use that same material and the same type of forcefield, reduce it to a singular point at the end of a gun and the gun will win.

Economics 101... the ability to produce said weapons may not exist in proportion to the ability of others to produce armor (psst... futuristic plasma weapons and the training to use and maintain them cost more than metal sticks and 4th grade inner city melee skills combined with PEDs)
Fantasy 101... epic sword fights are kinda thing in this genre... you know that, right?
Magic 101... I see your technology and raise you an eternal spirit army bred on hate and blood that appears from another realm and reaps your souls...

Eyjio wrote:
Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".

All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.

Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.

Well said. Assaulting, as improbable as it is in a "modern" battle, is an essential part of the feel of 40k. I got into the game because I liked the image of axe-waving orks ramming flaming monster trucks into the thick of 8 foot-tall armored superhumans wielding chainsaw-swords and electric piston-fists.

 Colpicklejar wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".

All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.

Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.

Well said. Assaulting, as improbable as it is in a "modern" battle, is an essential part of the feel of 40k. I got into the game because I liked the image of axe-waving orks ramming flaming monster trucks into the thick of 8 foot-tall armored superhumans wielding chainsaw-swords and electric piston-fists.

Yeah, me too. It would be fine to say these things if every faction was built around shooting but we have:
-CSM
-Daemons
-Orks
-Nids
Which are all predominantly based around needing to get into assault to get value from those units. Many other armies also pay additional points to get bonuses in assault. You can't design like that and then attempt to strip it out later; it just doesn't work. Anyone who thinks it should be a game revolving solely around shooting is either a power gamer or has no consideration towards anyone else's army choice. There are many games which don't make close combat an integral part, so if anyone is still looking for one, please do go play them (and several of those games are excellent). That is not 40k and hopefully never will be, so let's stop making up garbage based on fictional warfare where everything is described as immune to small arms in the background.

 AndrewC wrote:


How do you work out what is firing and at what range. The flamer hits out to 8" fine, but how do you figure out what bolters are firing at RF 12" and which are firing at single shot 24". Will we have to work out multi range weapons one at a time?

Andrew

You would do all the bolters together I assume as they are the same weapon. Just measure first to see how many RF shots you get and how many normal shots and add them up.

But the problem there loopstah, the wounds are limited by the range, (or so the rumoured rules read to me) so by taking RF shots, you would lose the ability to hit targets further than 12".

It's a bit of a mess.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
But the problem there loopstah, the wounds are limited by the range, (or so the rumoured rules read to me) so by taking RF shots, you would lose the ability to hit targets further than 12".

Rapid Fire doesn't change your range - at least in 6th. Don't think it did in 5th either. Doubt it will in 7th.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Agreed, musical wounds was the worst thing about 5th and I'm so glad it's gone. The only compromise I'd be OK with would be owner choosing the model, but then all wounds apply to that model until it is removed.

Yeah, I'm not talking about musical wounds at all. I've discribed exactly how it worked.

This is what you posted:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.

Maybe we have different definitions of 'musical wounds' but it seems like you're saying that you'd like to see wounds assigned in a round-robin fashion instead of assigning all to a single model until it is removed. I'd be ok with letting the owner choose as long as subsequent wounds automatically hit that model if it's still on the table.

 Colpicklejar wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".

All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.

Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.

Well said. Assaulting, as improbable as it is in a "modern" battle, is an essential part of the feel of 40k. I got into the game because I liked the image of axe-waving orks ramming flaming monster trucks into the thick of 8 foot-tall armored superhumans wielding chainsaw-swords and electric piston-fists.

Truth! I really love the idea the 40,000 years into the future there are axe wielding madmen. Khorne Berzerkers got me into the game. Of course shooting things are obvious, but Lysander fighting a bloodthirster is much more epic than 40 guardsman shooting that same thirster to death.

 rabidguineapig wrote:

 wallygator wrote:
i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.

Only when you play Daemons. Most other armies have very little if any psychic shooting attacks, most of the annoying things are blessings.

Most Daemons only have psychic shooting, so they really won't get two shooting phases either.

Eyjio wrote:
Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".

All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.

Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.

You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.

But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.

39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?

Nah. After all, Space Marines the 40k poster boys are close combat / assault specialists - it's the only place where they are better than a battle tank or a line of heavy bolters. I'm all for 'sci-realism', but for the purpose of 40k, I just assume that every battle takes place in a place where they really needed to get some boots on the ground to do the dirty work!

 Accolade wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".

All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.

Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.

You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.

But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.

I would like assault to be less common, but more dangerous somehow. It would add to the desperate and dramatic feel of the game.
(Of course, GW would somehow make it useless or op.)

 Davespil wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.

...Are you serious...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".

All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.

Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.

You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.

But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.

I would like assault to be less common, but more dangerous somehow. It would add to the desperate and dramatic feel of the game.
(Of course, GW would somehow make it useless or op.)

It is far more likely that the playerbase would find a way to abuse it and make it OP.

There's only 2 things I hope get changed:

- Allowing charging from outflanking/transport (non open topped), even with some form of penalty.

- Ordnance doesn't count other weapons to snap shot from heavy/walkers.

There must be lots of changes in that book that will shape the game. I just hope its the ones thats needed than to question why.

This thread has become even more hilarious than it was.
Let's just pretend CC armies don't exist because of "realism".

 Squidbot wrote:
This thread has become even more hilarious than it was.
Let's just pretend CC armies don't exist because of "realism".

We all have our different views of how much "realism" we want with our "fiction".
I find it hilarious how little realism you CAN apply with Orks, that can survive in space with whatever they built and not destroy it with their friendly fights to pass the time.
The belittling statements are less funny than the dogged determination to use CC in a more shooty ruleset.
At least there is hope for CC getting equalized a bit since a few armies lean that way a bit more.