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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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.

this can work both ways, though. a unit fleeing CC could potentially be left out to hang much worse then the unit it was CCing.

 streetsamurai wrote:
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

There is yet to be any evidence of that. We looked through his tweets and came up empty.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
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

There is yet to be any evidence of that. We looked through his tweets and came up empty.

thanks.

I know i'm probably in the minority, but I think it would be a cool rule. Would make their degradation less linear

I've honestly never liked how non-interactive 40k's close combat phase is. Ever.

For me, it has been the dullest part of the game since it was released. You wind your dudes up, let them loose and roll the dice. There is so little to be done at that point, it basically felt like a bunch of busy work.

The second two units touch, it is a case of rolling things out until it resolves X turns later. No more planning, no more maneuvering, no more choices. Just a bunch of rolling.

I get that some folks enjoyed that, but the lack of emergent gameplay and planning after two units made contact was just mostly a slog for me.

Now? Not only are you rewarded for the initial maneuvering (charge strikes first), but there are decisions to be made even once you're engaged. Though abstract (though to be honest, IGOUGO is already about as abstract as a turn order gets) alternating activations instead of the old system of resolving each combat fully in I order (i.e. a completely non-interactive system) means that both players are involved now and each choice has large consequences in an ongoing combat. Better still, putting the ability to fall back (at the cost of being pinned) in the hands of the player is a great mechanic to keep non-assault armies heavily involved. And that interaction spreads out to create emergent gameplay where it was mostly just random flailing before. And we only have a hint of the interactions here. Special rules and the like can have a ton of additional interactions we can't even fathom yet. But as a basic system it seems to have made assault a lot more interactive.

I can get why some folks may not like the look of that, especially after 40k has been a wind-up-and-go sort of assault system for ages, but depending on how the rest of the game fills out, I think that's a good shakeup to a relatively boring phase of every turn.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
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

There is yet to be any evidence of that. We looked through his tweets and came up empty.

thanks.

I know i'm probably in the minority, but I think it would be a cool rule. Would make their degradation less linear

So long as MC's can also be felled by a random shot to the vitals before their wounds tick to 0, then at least it would be fair. But I'm fine if all we get is staged degradation without random kills in between (though I would be fine is some vehicle units exploded when their last wound ticked off).

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?

GW has shown often enough they don't understand game in highly competive enviroment but play in more relaxed enviroment where even stuff even 10% competive player ignores flat out. So just because something is viable in THEIR games doesn't really mean it's viable in other enviroments.

Just for example as it is our group played with pretty relaxed lists early 7th ed before we switched to 2nd ed with house rules. Add to that lots of city terrain and even killa kans were somewhat viable for us.

But still doesn't make killa kans really viable. They only worked because they were facing less optimal lists as well in terrain that is practically custom made to negate their biggest weakness.

Until we know what kind of enviroment they are playing their "are viable" aren't all that comfortable. They have said "viable" for lots of stuff even semi competive players don't bother bringing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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

Yeah...Outside playtesting. That is of course quarantee everythign is all right. Of course if that was right earlier 40k editions and codexes would also be great Outside playtesting is hardly novel concept never done in GW before. They even had them when I started with GW games in '90's! (as it is I have suspicion I ended up being small part of stealth playtesting of WHFB 6th ed. At least one tournament external playtesters ran had rather familiar looking house rules for tournament near the end of 5th ed if I don't completely misremember it)

 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

Yeah...Outside playtesting. That is of course quarantee everythign is all right. Of course if that was right earlier 40k editions and codexes would also be great Outside playtesting is hardly novel concept never done in GW before. They even had them when I started with GW games in '90's! (as it is I have suspicion I ended up being small part of stealth playtesting of WHFB 6th ed. At least one tournament external playtesters ran had rather familiar looking house rules for tournament near the end of 5th ed if I don't completely misremember it)

To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.

 Rippy wrote:

To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.

You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.



Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.



It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.

 Rippy wrote:
To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.

Previous like tournament organizers etc? Not any random guys but guys who play and organize tournaments? How are current ones different from past ones?

For me the thrill of close combat lies in the tricky manuevering and planning that goes into dumping your CC dudes in charging range, and getting there. and your plan to keep em from getting shot off the board.

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.

You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.



Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.



It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.

Okay I guess that is a fair point. Though listening to the people who have been play testing on youtube, they were making a lot of changes based on their feedback as they were testing.

Is there a confirmed release date for this edition? Might pop down to local GW and see if it's worth getting back into.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Is there a confirmed release date for this edition? Might pop down to local GW and see if it's worth getting back into.

there wont be confirmation of release date for about another Month or so

Latest rumors are showing tentative date in early June (June 3rd to be specific) for pre-orders and release for sale on June 17th. (Source: Faeit 212 via user Sergio on Mini Wars in the comments section)

We'll see what we can see and if this holds true in short order. Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.

You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.



Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.



It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.

Age of Sigmar would be pretty good evidence in this case. I listen to all the podcasts whose hosts are on the play test team, and they certainly listen and change a ton of things during play testing. From listening to those guys talk they are treated as peers.

 Mymearan wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.

You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.



Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.



It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.

Age of Sigmar would be pretty good evidence in this case. I listen to all the podcasts whose hosts are on the play test team, and they certainly listen and change a ton of things during play testing. From listening to those guys talk they are treated as peers.

You can't use AoS on here as an example, because..Dakka. you right of course.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Latest rumors are showing tentative date in early June (June 3rd to be specific) for pre-orders and release for sale on June 17th. (Source: Faeit 212 via user Sergio on Mini Wars in the comments section)

We'll see what we can see and if this holds true in short order. Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Based on a comment section from a a dude named Sergio. Who is Sergio?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thebiggesthat wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.

You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.



Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.



It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.

Age of Sigmar would be pretty good evidence in this case. I listen to all the podcasts whose hosts are on the play test team, and they certainly listen and change a ton of things during play testing. From listening to those guys talk they are treated as peers.

You can't use AoS on here as an example, because..Dakka. you right of course.

There hasn't been much to hate from the rumours so far, so it is fair they cling to something to prematurely bash GW about

The key difference this time is that GW has explicitly mentioned who has been doing playtesting and let therm talk about their experiences. I don't think the enthusiasm I have seen and heard from these people is forced.
The aos testers talk about having big arguments about how best to do things. It really does seem like the playtesters have been taking a more active part than just saying unit X needs to be more points.
All the info we have points to a more collaborative approach this time.

Chikout wrote:
The key difference this time is that GW has explicitly mentioned who has been doing playtesting and let therm talk about their experiences. I don't think the enthusiasm I have seen and heard from these people is forced.
The aos testers talk about having big arguments about how best to do things. It really does seem like the playtesters have been taking a more active part than just saying unit X needs to be more points.
All the info we have points to a more collaborative approach this time.

Agreed. People deliberately ignoring this are best left behind imo - they are where they are for a reason.
That isn't to say skepticism is unwarranted, just be honest with yourself and others

3rd of June for preorder? Maybe a announcement at Warhammer Fest the weekend before seems like the best place to get the most number of eyes looking at it?

Chikout wrote:
The key difference this time is that GW has explicitly mentioned who has been doing playtesting and let therm talk about their experiences. I don't think the enthusiasm I have seen and heard from these people is forced.
The aos testers talk about having big arguments about how best to do things. It really does seem like the playtesters have been taking a more active part than just saying unit X needs to be more points.
All the info we have points to a more collaborative approach this time.

Actually playtesters have been known before so really only thing new is pre-release playtesters comment.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
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.

Do you want bet on what ATSKNF is going to do this editon, or it would actually be a good use for defensive grenades allowing the fall back without being pinned or leven leaving the attacker pinned.

Anyway chances are they will be exceptions is my point.

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.

You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.



Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.



It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.

I don't know about further in the past, but the last time they did it this way it resulted in the general's handbook which is widely accepted as one of the best things to happen to AoS, so there is positive precedent.

SeanDrake wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
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.

Do you want bet on what ATSKNF is going to do this editon, or it would actually be a good use for defensive grenades allowing the fall back without being pinned or leven leaving the attacker pinned.

Anyway chances are they will be exceptions is my point.

Wouldn't be that weird that exception will be with units that have hit&run. H&R allowed disengaging from melee before. Not giant leap of faith to assume it might be disengage without penalty in future.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
I've honestly never liked how non-interactive 40k's close combat phase is. Ever.

For me, it has been the dullest part of the game since it was released. You wind your dudes up, let them loose and roll the dice. There is so little to be done at that point, it basically felt like a bunch of busy work.

The second two units touch, it is a case of rolling things out until it resolves X turns later. No more planning, no more maneuvering, no more choices. Just a bunch of rolling.

I get that some folks enjoyed that, but the lack of emergent gameplay and planning after two units made contact was just mostly a slog for me.

Now? Not only are you rewarded for the initial maneuvering (charge strikes first), but there are decisions to be made even once you're engaged. Though abstract (though to be honest, IGOUGO is already about as abstract as a turn order gets) alternating activations instead of the old system of resolving each combat fully in I order (i.e. a completely non-interactive system) means that both players are involved now and each choice has large consequences in an ongoing combat. Better still, putting the ability to fall back (at the cost of being pinned) in the hands of the player is a great mechanic to keep non-assault armies heavily involved. And that interaction spreads out to create emergent gameplay where it was mostly just random flailing before. And we only have a hint of the interactions here. Special rules and the like can have a ton of additional interactions we can't even fathom yet. But as a basic system it seems to have made assault a lot more interactive.

I can get why some folks may not like the look of that, especially after 40k has been a wind-up-and-go sort of assault system for ages, but depending on how the rest of the game fills out, I think that's a good shakeup to a relatively boring phase of every turn.

I agree completely, well said!

Movement wrote:"If you’re in combat at the start of your turn, you can Fall Back by moving away from the enemy. You’ll lose the ability to advance, shoot or charge that turn, and crucially, enemies will be able to shoot at you!"

Emphasis mine.
Does that mean that while Falling Back at beginning of MY turn the opponent gets free shoot (during my turn) at Falling Back unit?

 danyboy wrote:

Movement wrote:"If you’re in combat at the start of your turn, you can Fall Back by moving away from the enemy. You’ll lose the ability to advance, shoot or charge that turn, and crucially, enemies will be able to shoot at you!"

Emphasis mine.
Does that mean that while Falling Back at beginning of MY turn the opponent gets free shoot (during my turn) at Falling Back unit?

Maybe, but it could also just mean that you are no longer locked in combat and thus a valid target for normal shooting again.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.

You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.



Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.



It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.

I don't know about further in the past, but the last time they did it this way it resulted in the general's handbook which is widely accepted as one of the best things to happen to AoS, so there is positive precedent.

It's also bit hard to judge the effect of playtesting, when it is done in secret and the large public don't have any idea what the rules where while they were tested. The rules we see are the end result after testing, it can be that there has been lots of tweaking, but those haven't been tested as well as the originals. Also in a game like 40k, it's quite impossible scenario, that all the permutations can be tested well enough as in 40k there is a very big influence on what is on the other side of the table for the effectiveness of different stuff.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
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

There is yet to be any evidence of that. We looked through his tweets and came up empty.

thanks.

I know i'm probably in the minority, but I think it would be a cool rule. Would make their degradation less linear

Well, as long as the same can be said about monstrous creatures (headshot, BAM!) and boh are adequately costed, I don't have a problem with it.

I hope there will be other factors that make assault effective. As with most assaults, only one side actually wants to be in it. and giving that side the ability to break from combat (if we assume the current turn structure) effectively halves the amount of damage that an assault unit can do during a game.

Regardless of the whole being left out in the open thing.

v0iddrgn wrote:

 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.

Didn't they say the unit gets to shoot them as they disengage? Or did I misinterpret what they wrote?

Either way, some kind of mechanic like free strikes in WMH would work and prevent people from disengaging with no consequences.