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.

Neronoxx wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:
They have stated "close combat will be viable again" stop crying let the orks have there Day.

Again, do you really think that they would directly state that CC will not be viable ?

Do you think new GW would blatantly lie?

Why not , companies lie all the time if it can give them more sales, even more so if its something as subjective that can never be proven false. And even if they are not lying, just because they want cc to be efficient doesnt means they will succeed in making it efficient and viable. As i said before, ill play a game or two before popping the champagne

 Crimson wrote:

We have been over this. Fixed-wound does not work remotely the same as S/T system. With fixed-wound it doesn't matter what you'r target is. It doesn't matter if you're attacking twelve goblins or a monster with twelve wounds. It is all the same. Same with multi-wound spilling. Twelve goblins or twelve-wound monster, doesn't matter, the weapon works just the same.

Furthermore, you can stop defending AOS. Could you just accept that these are mechanics some people do not like, and they're happy that they're not implemented in 40K?

It can, but you would just need a lot of wounds. The guns in 40K are more numerous and lethal so such a large differentiation isn't needed in AoS.

 streetsamurai wrote:


Why not , companies lie all the time if it can give them more sales, even more so if its something as subjective that can never be proven false. And even if they are not lying, just because they want cc to be efficient doesnt means they will succeed in making it efficient and viable. As i said before, ill play a game or two before popping the champagne

1) Being untruthful to get extra sales
2) Being ignorant and getting extra sales
3) Being confident and getting extra sales

There's a vast difference between these and i'm pretty sure the FLG and other tournament guys know how close combat works.

If you can't objectively prove it to be bad then it is not bad not matter how much you will want to cling to a crummy opinion.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


Why not , companies lie all the time if it can give them more sales, even more so if its something as subjective that can never be proven false. And even if they are not lying, just because they want cc to be efficient doesnt means they will succeed in making it efficient and viable. As i said before, ill play a game or two before popping the champagne

1) Being untruthful to get extra sales
2) Being ignorant and getting extra sales
3) Being confident and getting extra sales

There's a vast difference between these and i'm pretty sure the FLG and other tournament guys know how close combat works.

If you can't objectively prove it to be bad then it is not bad not matter how much you will want to cling to a crummy opinion.

I nevet said they were lying, youre the one putting word in my mouth. Only said that thinking that cc will become viable just because the game developpers said so, is naive at best.

Honestly, it is actually astonishing that some of you have an issues with what i just wrote.

I am liking this disengage rule..

When you consider that chargers get first hit,

If your entire army is CC it is a good thing.. as you can pinned or keep locked multiple units, the disengage option means the defender actually has some options and it isn't just a boring lets see how long we can hold out, but if the defender doesn't have a back line to hit this assault army.. then they risk just being pushed off the board..

I'm sure gw believes CC will be viable. You just need to realize that they won't play the game the same as everyone else.

 streetsamurai wrote:


I nevet said they were lying, youre the one putting word in my mouth. Only said that thinking that cc will become viable just because the game developpers said so, is naive at best.

Honestly, it is actually astonishing that some of you have an issues with what i just wrote.

You didn't have to directly say they were lying. The intent of your words are clear enough.

Again, do you think they would directly state that CC will not be viable?

This implies that they would know that it is not and willfully mislead us.

Putting out an email that says 'Buy the New 40K - it's the best ever!' is a world away from having a live FAQ, showing us the rules before we buy it, promising to keep the system up to date, proving that they are engaged in doing so (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/02/07/the-generals-handbook-ii-wip-points-sneak-peek/), and sourcing external play testing.

There's being cautious and there's being pessimistic for the sake of being a pessimist.

GW: Hey Tyranid, Ork and Daemon players?
Tyranid, Ork & Daemon Players: Yeah?
GW: *holds up movement rules* Feth you guys!

You shouldn't be able to just run away from combat scot free.

An interesting ramification of "no templates" is that you literally could put your models on square bases and roll them around on little trays or carts. Or run them all in base to base contact. Unless you are trying to surround someone or block off part of the board, every advantage goes to the compact unit. Not sure how I feel about that. Might be OK - more choice of formations, more speed play. Might look like the art. Might look dumb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW: Hey Tyranid, Ork and Daemon players?
Tyranid, Ork & Daemon Players: Yeah?
GW: *holds up movement rules* Feth you guys!

You shouldn't be able to just run away from combat scot free.

Well, it does seem the disengaging unit is pinned. If the attacker got some protection from being shot to bits it could be OK.

It isn't Scott free, your unit cannot do anything damaging the following turn and had to take an entire round of combat since they only get to disengage at the start of their turn.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


I nevet said they were lying, youre the one putting word in my mouth. Only said that thinking that cc will become viable just because the game developpers said so, is naive at best.

Honestly, it is actually astonishing that some of you have an issues with what i just wrote.

You didn't have to directly say they were lying. The intent of your words are clear enough.

Again, do you think they would directly state that CC will not be viable?

This implies that they would know that it is not and willfully mislead us.

Putting out an email that says 'Buy the New 40K - it's the best ever!' is a world away from having a live FAQ, showing us the rules before we buy it, promising to keep the system up to date, proving that they are engaged in doing so (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/02/07/the-generals-handbook-ii-wip-points-sneak-peek/), and sourcing external play testing.

There's being cautious and there's being pessimistic for the sake of being a pessimist.

You do know that GW has lied before.in blatant manners to its customers (on space hulk)??

Once again, im not saying or hope it is the case, but it is a possibility. Anyway. This is getting ot

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW: Hey Tyranid, Ork and Daemon players?
Tyranid, Ork & Daemon Players: Yeah?
GW: *holds up movement rules* Feth you guys!

You shouldn't be able to just run away from combat scot free.

It's not Scot free when you suffer penalties.

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm sure gw believes CC will be viable. You just need to realize that they won't play the game the same as everyone else.

Luckily they mostly out sourced the play testing then....

>When your bashing of GW doesn't work

 Rippy wrote:

Luckily they mostly out sourced the play testing then....

This isn't the first time they've used out-sourced playtesting. The problem last time around was that they tended to ignore the playtesters if the feedback went against GW's preconceptions.

 Rippy wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm sure gw believes CC will be viable. You just need to realize that they won't play the game the same as everyone else.

Luckily they mostly out sourced the play testing then....

>When your bashing of GW doesn't work

That doesn't mean anything as many companies have gotten outside groups to playtest and then ignore the feedback. How long have the players been playtesting 40k?

I want 8th to be really fun but let's not be naive to the history.

I am torn about the Fleeing mechanic. On the one hand, I don't like a unit I charged being able to escape. Locking something down into combat is an important tactic for a close combat army. However, they are pinned after they flee - but it does allow them to use some nice tactical opportunities to punish the assaulting units with nearby units with shooting. It gives shooting heavy armies some opportunity for interaction in the combat phase. Having to choose between staying locked in and swinging, or running away will add an interesting dynamic. So, with other aspects of the game changing, like potentially increased movement, possibly Run + Charge, and possibly no more overwatch, I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. It definitely will add some back and forth in the assault phase for all armies to do interesting tactical stuff.

It just means if you want to assault early.. you want to do a lot of assaults to mitigate any potential fallback and exposure

GodDamUser wrote:
It just means if you want to assault early.. you want to do a lot of assaults to mitigate any potential fallback and exposure

This is actually another strike against Death Stars. A single super powerful unit will have a hard time controlling the board and engaging a gunline. Spreading the assault power into many different units will be a more effective way to deal with units potentially.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I am torn about the Fleeing mechanic. On the one hand, I don't like a unit I charged being able to escape. Locking something down into combat is an important tactic for a close combat army. However, they are pinned after they flee - but it does allow them to use some nice tactical opportunities to punish the assaulting units with nearby units with shooting. It gives shooting heavy armies some opportunity for interaction in the combat phase. Having to choose between staying locked in and swinging, or running away will add an interesting dynamic. So, with other aspects of the game changing, like potentially increased movement, possibly Run + Charge, and possibly no more overwatch, I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. It definitely will add some back and forth in the assault phase for all armies to do interesting tactical stuff.

It's worth keeping in mind that running away from combat, if you don't then manage to eliminate the enemy unit with shooting, leaves your fleeing unit potentially still in range for them to just charge straight back in on their turn, hitting first with whatever charge bonuses the new game applies.


So yes, overall I think I like this change. But then, I was never a fan of being locked in combat anway...

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I am torn about the Fleeing mechanic. On the one hand, I don't like a unit I charged being able to escape. Locking something down into combat is an important tactic for a close combat army. However, they are pinned after they flee - but it does allow them to use some nice tactical opportunities to punish the assaulting units with nearby units with shooting. It gives shooting heavy armies some opportunity for interaction in the combat phase. Having to choose between staying locked in and swinging, or running away will add an interesting dynamic. So, with other aspects of the game changing, like potentially increased movement, possibly Run + Charge, and possibly no more overwatch, I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. It definitely will add some back and forth in the assault phase for all armies to do interesting tactical stuff.

There's a lot that plays into whether or not this will be bad.

Are sweeping advances in?
Has the charge phase changed at all?
Has the math for melee changed?
How do power weapons work now?

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm sure gw believes CC will be viable. You just need to realize that they won't play the game the same as everyone else.

Which is why they asked everyone else to playtest. Or are you saying the guys from frontline gaming bring now soft lists to their matches?

This new flee mechanic will make my Tau Breachers much more viable. They aren't gonna just explode once they are charged. They will be able to fall back and be supported by other Breacher Teams!

Oh, so many hopes I have in my short range shooting Tau army to be viable...

 insaniak wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I am torn about the Fleeing mechanic. On the one hand, I don't like a unit I charged being able to escape. Locking something down into combat is an important tactic for a close combat army. However, they are pinned after they flee - but it does allow them to use some nice tactical opportunities to punish the assaulting units with nearby units with shooting. It gives shooting heavy armies some opportunity for interaction in the combat phase. Having to choose between staying locked in and swinging, or running away will add an interesting dynamic. So, with other aspects of the game changing, like potentially increased movement, possibly Run + Charge, and possibly no more overwatch, I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. It definitely will add some back and forth in the assault phase for all armies to do interesting tactical stuff.

It's worth keeping in mind that running away from combat, if you don't then manage to eliminate the enemy unit with shooting, leaves your fleeing unit potentially still in range for them to just charge straight back in on their turn, hitting first with whatever charge bonuses the new game applies.


So yes, overall I think I like this change. But then, I was never a fan of being locked in combat anway...

Agreed, and to add to this further, they HAD to allow this with the new moral system since it would have made tar pits SOOOOOOOOOOO much more prevalent. I mean had they nopt added this could you imagine how long it would take to free up something like a guard platoon from even 1 or 2 terminators?

So thinking about it, I actually like the fall back mechanic as I think it will make you think more about charging over the straight forward "Charge here and profit!" mentality.

It's going to force CC armies to be tactical in the movement phase by setting up multiple charges on priority targets.

It's going to force shooty armies to be more tactical in target selection, compared to what I see a lot of right now of 'my stupid awesome shooty unit can see that unit. Please take it off the board.'

You don't really see CC armies these days, but I got the FLOOR wiped with me at Adepticon by Genestealer Cults. He had gotten first blood before the game started (won't be sad to see that go), and then he had 3 separate units charge on the top of turn one. Game was over by turn two. Being able to fall back out of charge range would've actually been a pretty good benefit to me in that game, although I still would've lost, so it certainly wouldn't have been game breaking.

But that's just my two cents.

Like AoS you might also be able to quite easily charge multiple units at once, which makes the angle of attack somewhat vital.

Do the new move mechanics mean turbo boost is out? I am personally wondering what an exalted sorcerer or herald could do with a disc of tzeentch. My t sons are very curious about psychic phase.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Sorry, but spin and deceit are often the same thing,.

By Wikipedia

In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion in favor or against some organization or public figure. While traditional public relations and advertising may also rely on altering the presentation of the facts, "spin" often implies the use of disingenuous, deceptive, and highly manipulative tactics.[1]

I think that's probably as far as we need to go with that tangent in this thread. If you want to discuss the finer points of marketing strategies and corporate spin, that might be better off done in Off-Topic.

 Ysclyth wrote:
Do the new move mechanics mean turbo boost is out? I am personally wondering what an exalted sorcerer or herald could do with a disc of tzeentch. My t sons are very curious about psychic phase.

If they have it then it will likely be a rule specific to the unit. So it's all up in the air, but lots about Rubrics will become pretty awesome now.

They can't do anything after running away. Big deal. Units don't exist in a vacuum. The rest of your army no gets to blast the unit you just ran away from.

I've asked the question before but got no answer. Is it true that the game designer stated that vehicule could still randomly explode?

Thanks