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.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.

Isn't it only a turn after the charge though? If so, you should have a turn to wail on them for a bit, and then shoot them when they try to retreat.

Well you should of killed them faster im fine with assault lines not having assault protection anymore. and besides its possible you might be able to attempt to catch them if they try and run off. we dont have the full rules.

Yes, we will kill their vanguard with our main force, but then our main force is eliminated, leaving their main force untouched.

Depending on the rules.

Edit: Having said that, i has a think. What if we attack their front liners with a tiny force of our own? then both vanguards die, but leaving our main force ready to assault theirs.

Depending on the rules.

Oh hey, a use for grots. Sounds perfectly fine.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.

Isn't it only a turn after the charge though? If so, you should have a turn to wail on them for a bit, and then shoot them when they try to retreat.

Well you should of killed them faster im fine with assault lines not having assault protection anymore. and besides its possible you might be able to attempt to catch them if they try and run off. we dont have the full rules.

Yes, we will kill their vanguard with our main force, but then our main force is eliminated, leaving their main force untouched.

Depending on the rules.

Edit: Having said that, i has a think. What if we attack their front liners with a tiny force of our own? then both vanguards die, but leaving our main force ready to assault theirs.

Depending on the rules.

You just described standard Ironjaw tactics.

Sacrifice the boys, let the nobs and warbosses take the glory. If, and I'm hoping it is, 40k follows the path of AoS then it will be a golden age again for greenskins.

Cautious optimism from me and my buddies regarding this new edition. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out and if it's worth getting (back) into. If it becomes a (somewhat) strategic war game instead of the abomination it's been the past decade or so, I'm in.

On the livestream Q&A they mentioned vehicles and MC having the same rules.

@Jamopower: We can't judge the quality of playteting because we weren't involved that''s right. But the logistical nightmare of having mass playtesting in a speedy usefull fashion is huge. There's masive diminishing returns on playtesting if you can't acces the meta-data of the game.

A unit that Falls Back can do nothing else that turn. It's only hope is that ally units can take care of the unit from which it has fled...

Ruin wrote:

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.

Obviously the final result of this rule will depend to some extent on other factors, but taken at face value "you can shoot at them as they run away" isn't that convincing a counterpoint to someone worried about their assault units. First, because most good assault units don't tend to have much shooting to begin with, and second because being able to put a few pistol shots into a fleeing enemy unit hardly compares to the giant rubber horse dangler that will be coming your assaulters' way in the following enemy turn when their whole very-shooty army responds.

Now, it seems like what GW are trying to do with these changes is encourage a shift away from single, bloated, hideous-amalgam deathstar assault units who can only really be stopped before they hit CC and are optimised to prevent exactly that, towards an interaction between multiple less-powerful and to a degree more disposable assault units on the one hand and carefully positioned and tactically withdrawn bubble wrap units on the other, which could be fantastic if they execute it well. The issue is that executing it well would require the wholesale rebalancing or just about every unit in the game, or else there will be some big losers - tilt the changes too far and more elite, expensive assault units become worthless relative to throwaway spam CC units; don't tilt them far enough and armies with elite CC will hilariously outperform those with non-elite CC; fail to adequately balance shooting both on a unit and an army scale and assault will become incredibly situational and pointless outwith those situations.

They do appear to be trying to do exactly that, the question is whether you trust GW to succeed, and I think people are entirely justified in being skeptical.

There's bound to be some penalty - additional casualties as you break away would be my assumption. We haven't seen the full rules yet.

"If they execute it badly " can destroy any attempt or anything GW (or anyone) tries to do, so I find it sort of useless in this discussion: it doesn't mean anything.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Ruin wrote:

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.

Obviously the final result of this rule will depend to some extent on other factors, but taken at face value "you can shoot at them as they run away" isn't that convincing a counterpoint to someone worried about their assault units. First, because most good assault units don't tend to have much shooting to begin with, and second because being able to put a few pistol shots into a fleeing enemy unit hardly compares to the giant rubber horse dangler that will be coming your assaulters' way in the following enemy turn when their whole very-shooty army responds.

Now, it seems like what GW are trying to do with these changes is encourage a shift away from single, bloated, hideous-amalgam deathstar assault units who can only really be stopped before they hit CC and are optimised to prevent exactly that, towards an interaction between multiple less-powerful and to a degree more disposable assault units on the one hand and carefully positioned and tactically withdrawn bubble wrap units on the other, which could be fantastic if they execute it well. The issue is that executing it well would require the wholesale rebalancing or just about every unit in the game, or else there will be some big losers - tilt the changes too far and more elite, expensive assault units become worthless relative to throwaway spam CC units; don't tilt them far enough and armies with elite CC will hilariously outperform those with non-elite CC; fail to adequately balance shooting both on a unit and an army scale and assault will become incredibly situational and pointless outwith those situations.

They do appear to be trying to do exactly that, the question is whether you trust GW to succeed, and I think people are entirely justified in being skeptical.

I would prefer the the disengaging unit to take an initiative test, really. If failed they stay in combat and the attackers act as though they charged that round.

My opinion on the fall back is that i think some mechanic for disengaging from combat is needed. There have been rules like hit and run or our weapons are useless, but they were not accessable by all factions or units.

But my problem would be a free fall back action. The reasons being, under the following assumptions:
assault is still random, it might still fail and the assaulting unit might be stuck in the open
The defending unit stil gets to overwatch, which is logical since one would always shoot at the attacker

So assault is high risk, since you might fail the charge and/ or take casualties on the way in.

What you gain is to strike first and have the chance to annihilate your opponent, which is the high gain part.
The survivers strike back and the attacker loses modells.
Than the battleshock, in my opinion a good mechanic, is rolled and additional casualties are dealt to the CC losing side. But this might as well be the attacking unit, so again high risk high gain.

But now comes the crucial point, which is the disengaging:
If the defender can just disengage and walk away, say the 3 surviving guardsmen, the rest of the guard army can open fire on the bloodthirsty butcherhorde they just barely survived.
In addition, templates are gone, and as long as we dont see minimum shooting distance, the whole guard army can open fire without the danger of scattering templates into their own troops.
I also cant think of a situation in which the bloodthirsty butcherhorde would just let the guardsmen walk away without stabbing or shooting the cowards in the back!

I would like to see a mechanic like hit&run, where you have to make a roll to disengage to get away and maybe if you miss the attacker gets a free shooting or cc attack. Or maybe even take the CC result into account so there would be a representation of orderly retreat vs fleeing combat.
In addition, what happens to the attacker left behind? is he allowed to consolidate or just standing there, scratching their head and wondering why the british left the battle to fetch some tea?!?

If you can just walk away and sacrifice the shooting of 3 guardsmen to gain the ability to annihilate the stupid butcherhorde with the full force of your shooty army, i really doubt assault will see a revival on the table!

 Bull0 wrote:
There's bound to be some penalty - additional casualties as you break away would be my assumption.

Yod already covered that. A few extra casualties is no big deal compared to the full army starring at your (now totally exposed) HTH unit.

If consolidate into combat comes back, that would actually mitigate that problem. If the assaulted unit retreats the attackers could just consolidate to a nearby squad. As the disengage is done at the start of the movement phase, the defender would not have a chance to move the nearby squads to safety.

I hope they are wise enough to import the whole close combat phase from AoS to 40k. It's very intuitive and good. Though it doesn't seem it will happen.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If consolidate into combat comes back, that would actually mitigate that problem.

How?

"If you’re in combat at the start of your turn, you can Fall Back by moving away from the enemy."

My unit is in HTH combat with a super-combat enemy unit. I Fall Back by moving away. It's still my turn. I annihilate the combat unit with shooting before they can do anything. Unless you're saying that they get to consolidate immediately after I move my squad out of combat, effectively working as an out-of-phase movement during my movement phase?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I would prefer the the disengaging unit to take an initiative test, really. If failed they stay in combat and the attackers act as though they charged that round.

That would a) put more random to the game b) require initiave test be done with something other than initiave because...well there's no more initiave!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If consolidate into combat comes back, that would actually mitigate that problem.

How?

"If you’re in combat at the start of your turn, you can Fall Back by moving away from the enemy."

My unit is in HTH combat with a super-combat enemy unit. I Fall Back by moving away. It's still my turn. I annihilate the combat unit with shooting before they can do anything. Unless you're saying that they get to consolidate immediately after I move my squad out of combat, effectively working as an out-of-phase movement during my movement phase?

GW won't do this kind of turn interruption/ Never going to happen. If I' have to wager the rule will remain exactly the same as in proto-40k (AoS). It just bugs me to no end that they've been releasing the same proto-40k rules with the slogan "made for you". There's already Duncan's (hivefleetcharybdis) AoS scrolls for AoS. C'mon guys, you should've manned up and come up with something better :/

Remember, this is a teaser; you're not getting the full rules here. So there may be other criteria required, or other penalties.

To me, it encourages a more holistic approach. Instead of just pointing your melee monsters at the enemy's heavy weapon squads, now you need to think about their position; do you need to approach from an angle to avoid supporting fire, or does the rest of your army need to provide covering fire to support the assault? Do you try to surround the enemy to prevent their escape?

Regarding vehicles, monstrous creatures and characters; firstly, I'm assuming, based on analogies with Age of Sigmar, that every multi-wound model will have its own rules for how it takes progressive damage. Saying "vehicles have a chance to explode at some intermediate damage step" is irrelevant, because that might apply to all, some, a few or only one or two specific units. Space Marine vehicles (especially rhinos) might suffer less degradation early on than Imperial Guard to represent better self-repair systems, for example.

there was a set of experimental vehicle rules published in the Citadel Journal at the tail end of 2nd edition that did what these rules are now doing (1st edition also gave vehicles the same stats as everything else, but that's by the by). There, Wounds represented the physical size of the vehicle - a Land Raider had more Wounds than an Ork buggy. Toughness represented the general build quality, resilience and internal bracing and suchlike - Imperial Guard and Ork tanks were more solidly built than Space Marine or Eldar tanks. the save represented the quality of the armour - Space Marine and Eldar vehicles had better saves than Guard or Orks.

On top of that, there was a "critical damage" mechanic which allowed for "golden bb" lucky shots killing the vehicle in one hit. Importantly for this discussion, it also suggested applying this rule to anything with multiple Wounds; Tyranid Carnifexes, Space Marine Captains, ...

My point being, if some vehicles have a "your shot might penetrate the vehicle's power plant. Roll a dice: on a 6 the vehicle is destroyed", but then so might a Carnifex have "your shot penetrated the beast's brain ...".
Or it might not, and this entire tangent has been based on a hoax. I'll worry about that sort of thing when I see it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If consolidate into combat comes back, that would actually mitigate that problem.

How?

"If you’re in combat at the start of your turn, you can Fall Back by moving away from the enemy."

My unit is in HTH combat with a super-combat enemy unit. I Fall Back by moving away. It's still my turn. I annihilate the combat unit with shooting before they can do anything. Unless you're saying that they get to consolidate immediately after I move my squad out of combat, effectively working as an out-of-phase movement during my movement phase?

Isn't that how it was in 4th ed? I distinctly remember my units being murdered in assault, and the enemy squad consolidating into one of units during my turn. This is not a new concept I'm talking about.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If consolidate into combat comes back, that would actually mitigate that problem.

How?

"If you’re in combat at the start of your turn, you can Fall Back by moving away from the enemy."

My unit is in HTH combat with a super-combat enemy unit. I Fall Back by moving away. It's still my turn. I annihilate the combat unit with shooting before they can do anything. Unless you're saying that they get to consolidate immediately after I move my squad out of combat, effectively working as an out-of-phase movement during my movement phase?

GW won't do this kind of turn interruption/ Never going to happen. If I' have to wager the rule will remain exactly the same as in proto-40k (AoS). It just bugs me to no end that they've been releasing the same proto-40k rules with the slogan "made for you". There's already Duncan's (hivefleetcharybdis) AoS scrolls for AoS. C'mon guys, you should've manned up and come up with something better :/

They already did turn interruption with horrendously broken Ynnari soulburst actions.
So who knows.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Isn't that how it was in 4th ed? I distinctly remember my units being murdered in assault, and the enemy squad consolidating into one of units during my turn. This is not a new concept I'm talking about.

That was 3rd ed and was done at the end of CC so if it happened on your turn they were already in combat at the start of your turn.

But yeah it existed then. Wasn't good then and doubtful they are going to reintroduce out of turn movements like that when they look to be simplifying game.

 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

It really depends how random it is. 9+ on 2D6? I can probably live with that. Just a 6+? Well, anti-tank weapons will need to be more expensive or else it could be frustrating.

 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

He is blissfully unaware that they used the big tournament organisations to play test the new rules(they have clearly stated this) the guys that know the game better then games workshop them selves, I have faith in the new Games workshop tm I really do, I wonder how many of the haters are still playing the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
There's bound to be some penalty - additional casualties as you break away would be my assumption.

Yod already covered that. A few extra casualties is no big deal compared to the full army starring at your (now totally exposed) HTH unit.

That already happens if you win the assault and the losers fall back anyway. It's perverse to charge a unit into combat but *try not to kill all the enemies* because *as long as at least one opponent is still engaged with us we're immune to gunfire*

 Megaknob wrote:

 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

He is blissfully unaware that they used the big tournament organisations to play test the new rules(they have clearly stated this) the guys that know the game better then games workshop them selves, I have faith in the new Games workshop tm I really do, I wonder how many of the haters are still playing the game.

At least the 7th/8th Fantasy army books used to have lots of famous names from uk tournament scene listed as playtesters, so this shouldn't be so new thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
There's bound to be some penalty - additional casualties as you break away would be my assumption.

Yod already covered that. A few extra casualties is no big deal compared to the full army starring at your (now totally exposed) HTH unit.

You seem to be putting across a terrible straw man argument. You can't compare a single ccu against the entire opponents army. I think it's clear from these rules that you need to be more careful in your assaults, hitting multiple enemy units at once or not at all and staying back in cover. There's a significat difference between having a single unit left swinging in the breeze as their opponent runs away, leaving the rest of the enemy army to shoot at them and giving your opponent the choice of having half their army either stay in combat with killy units or pull back and do nothing.

Can't wait to see 1k Sons. I wonder if their bolters will ignore SM armor still? Or just make it harder. And if they'll still be super expensive to the point where you can't really play a full army. And if there are no invuln saves (just assuming here), then what does their mark do now?

 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?

I hope so. Falling Back should be a costly maneuver. Turning your back on the enemy is a dangerous move. Either that or it should cost Command Points to do. It should definitely not come free otherwise we will be back to CC units sucking against gunlines.

So, had a look at the new profiles again, and I just noticed they dropped initiative.
Which means there's a good chance that sweeping advance no longer exists. If so, I like it. I hated that rule.

 Megaknob wrote:
He is blissfully unaware that they used the big tournament organisations to play test the new rules(they have clearly stated this) the guys that know the game better then games workshop them selves, I have faith in the new Games workshop tm I really do, I wonder how many of the haters are still playing the game.

Ah right...Like GW hasn't before used tournament organizers as playtesters before! Oh no! Wait...Except they have.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So, had a look at the new profiles again, and I just noticed they dropped initiative.
Which means there's a good chance that sweeping advance no longer exists. If so, I like it. I hated that rule.

Why? Because it was just about the only way to remove a unit of Necrons from the field?