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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

This sucks. Having a guy in charge of the Imperium sucks big time already. Having this guy be the big burly space marine++ that doesn't even fit right in the grimdark due to the horus heresy thing about them being enlightened atheist sucks even more.

They needed a character (Guiliman) to have a confrontation with the main antagonist (abaddon). The lords of Terra being corrupted and relativly unimportant didn't work out for that.

I think I'd like to see overwatch go the way of the Dodo.

Other things I'm keeping my fingers crossed for:

casualties from either shooting or close combat are taken from anywhere in the squad.
Go back to having a unit use it's most common weapon skill and toughness
Have leadership values actual mean something again, and I don't really care how.

Just on the note of Guilliman and Abaddon, it seems likely now that the latter will be getting a snazzy new model at some point. I'm really glad that "dies to a bolt pistol" rumour ended up being just that, I always thought that was just clickbait spread by the usual suspects.

AoS is the way to go for damage allocation. It's so easy to resolve and prevents any shenanigans.

I don't mind the game going hero hammer either.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.

So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

changemod wrote:

 kestral wrote:
I dislike overwatch and snap shots and would not be sorry to see them gone. Rolling lots of dice hoping for 6s is tedious and slows down the game. On the other hand, I would like some kind of meaningful reaction fire option so that the moment of assault is more critical than the slog forward. But I think you should also have ways to eliminate reaction fire through supporting units.

Could be spend command point to fire at full BS, with Tau getting some fancy army gimmick for it.

Probably not just Tau - some units in AOS get pseudo Overwatch or can flee from combat etc.

So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

Bit confused by this post - 40k is just as much about the chainsword as the bolter.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.

So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

I question your familiarity with the setting.

It's not a sci-fi really, more space fantasy.

SeanDrake wrote:
Yeah we're heading back to drive the tank closer so I can hit them with my sword teritory.

Meh. Saw that coming with there choice of testers. I would guess horde assault armies will be the goto until the new codes start coming out.

as opposed to let me shoot your whole army off the table in turn 2 like it is now ?

 Gimgamgoo wrote:


So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

Because the fictions are about guys that punch things in the face?

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.

So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

It's just bit unfortunate that the Warhammer game engine isn't very good if the game is mainly shooting. The igougo mechanic makes the game bit too easily into a competition who rolls most dice. The same problem is in AoS and in the old Whfb. Shooting is/was very powerful in those games and at the same time very non-interactive. Whereas in games like Bolt action /Gates of antares, Epic, Dropzone commander and Infinity it has been balanced with reaction mechanisms and alternating action, so that you cannot freely shoot everything you have. That's why the best 40k editions have been those that had more strength in close combat as it is the best part in Warhammer, no matter the variety.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.

So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

Have you ever played 40k? Read the fluff? Because it sounds like you haven't.

Shooting and assault should try to be as equal as possible. And since shooting has an inherent advantage over assault, assault needs a boost. Even if the two are largely the same in actual damage inflicting power, assault should have more serious consequences. Shooting should pick a few guys off and at best pin you. Assault should rout the squad completely. Deleting entire units via shooting should be reserved for the most powerful of artillery or absolute masses of substained regular firepower.

Goodbye broken summoning

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is the way to go for damage allocation. It's so easy to resolve and prevents any shenanigans.

I don't mind the game going hero hammer either.

To use AoS wound allocation you can't put character in units. In AoS you can give them 5 -7 wounds each and that's it. In 40K they would be deleted from the table.

It's already an echo chamber but I'll just add in that the current codex covers for the following factions all feature a character/creature wielding a visible melee weapon;

Deathwatch, Farsight Enclaves, Harlequins, Champions of Fenris, Chaos Daemons, Adeptus Custodes, Space Marines, Astra Militarum, Dark Angels, Tyranids, Khorne Daemonkin, Eldar Craftworlds, Necrons, Imperial Agents, Cult Mechanicus, Genestealer Cults, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Waaaagh! Ghazghkull, Space Wolves, Haemonculus Covens, Imperial Knights, Skitarii, Traitor Legions.

And the list of codex covers that don't feature a character/creature wielding a visible melee weapon;

Tau Empire, Sisters of Silence, Black Legion, Orks, Crimson Slaughter, Militarum Tempestus, Chaos Space Marines.

So yeah

 jamopower wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.

So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

It's just bit unfortunate that the Warhammer game engine isn't very good if the game is mainly shooting. The igougo mechanic makes the game bit too easily into a competition who rolls most dice. The same problem is in AoS and in the old Whfb. Shooting is/was very powerful in those games and at the same time very non-interactive. Whereas in games like Bolt action /Gates of antares, Epic, Dropzone commander and Infinity it has been balanced with reaction mechanisms and alternating action, so that you cannot freely shoot everything you have. That's why the best 40k editions have been those that had more strength in close combat as it is the best part in Warhammer, no matter the variety.

You should go play those games instead?

 Rippy wrote:
Goodbye broken summoning

Well I think people are looking for summoning actually being beneficial rather than "deep strike, but you have to have a living wizard, pass a casting attempt and miss the opportunity to cast a different spell".

There's a balance point to be found, with one being underwhelming and the other excessive.

Spoletta wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is the way to go for damage allocation. It's so easy to resolve and prevents any shenanigans.

I don't mind the game going hero hammer either.

To use AoS wound allocation you can't put character in units. In AoS you can give them 5 -7 wounds each and that's it. In 40K they would be deleted from the table.

A simple addition to an AoS style system can fix that.

 Rippy wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.

So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

It's just bit unfortunate that the Warhammer game engine isn't very good if the game is mainly shooting. The igougo mechanic makes the game bit too easily into a competition who rolls most dice. The same problem is in AoS and in the old Whfb. Shooting is/was very powerful in those games and at the same time very non-interactive. Whereas in games like Bolt action /Gates of antares, Epic, Dropzone commander and Infinity it has been balanced with reaction mechanisms and alternating action, so that you cannot freely shoot everything you have. That's why the best 40k editions have been those that had more strength in close combat as it is the best part in Warhammer, no matter the variety.

You should go play those games instead?

That's what I have done for the past edition, but wishing there would still be something for me in the 41st millenium as well.

 thenewgozoku wrote:
They needed a character (Guiliman) to have a confrontation with the main antagonist (abaddon). The lords of Terra being corrupted and relativly unimportant didn't work out for that.

Still sucks. And they didn't need said character to rule the Imperium, just champion for it.

Next month teaser says (loosely translated from the german magazine) "Darkness - far future - only war"

Next issue release date is said to be 16th of June

Spoletta wrote:
Shooting is less deadly due to the removal of AP. Rend is a more deadly mechanic only on 3+ and 2+ profiles. Same with mortal wounds, they punish high armor profiles.

Little question, what was Rending? Learning the rules in spanish (my mother language) has its downsides when it comes to talking with the english community...

 GloomyFenix wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Shooting is less deadly due to the removal of AP. Rend is a more deadly mechanic only on 3+ and 2+ profiles. Same with mortal wounds, they punish high armor profiles.

Little question, what was Rending? Learning the rules in spanish (my mother language) has its downsides when it comes to talking with the english community...

On To Wound rolls of 6s, the weapon was AP2.

I got my WD a minute ago, too. Next WD on 16th of June confirmed. Last page teaser page in english WD "Grim darkness / Far future / Only war"

There is no info about 8th ed after a first look

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.

So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

Part of 40ks setting is that they use close combat to resolve war just as much as shooting. I suggest reading up on that :p This isn't flames of war.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.

So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?

Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.

I don't want to play a game purely revolving around mele combat I want to stampede across the board loosing hordes of men before finally ripping the enemy apart some time I make it some times I don't, right now I never make it.
cc is coming back with a vengeance prepare for it.

changemod wrote:

I question your familiarity with the setting.
It's not a sci-fi really, more space fantasy.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Have you ever played 40k? Read the fluff? Because it sounds like you haven't.

Shooting and assault should try to be as equal as possible. And since shooting has an inherent advantage over assault, assault needs a boost. Even if the two are largely the same in actual damage inflicting power, assault should have more serious consequences. Shooting should pick a few guys off and at best pin you. Assault should rout the squad completely. Deleting entire units via shooting should be reserved for the most powerful of artillery or absolute masses of substained regular firepower.

So... I guess I need to pop up to the loft and open the box of stored rules and codices and take a photo of me with my original Rogue Trader rules. Sorry I don't own 2nd edition, I was too busy with real life at the time. My copy of third edition was so badly worn and falling to bits, it got thrown out once 4th edition came out and I moved house. The rest are there, bar a few old codices that have been carbooted over the years.

Yes, I get the setting and the fluff. It doesn't mean I want a return to the days when I set my figures up. My opponent sets his Blood Angels up and somehow manages to charge across the table first and second turn and wipe me after I had one round of shooting.

However, I do agree that close combat needs to be better. At the school club I ran, even the kids got bored with close combat going on forever.
"I need a 3 to hit and 4's to wound you, you need a 4 to hit and 3's to wound me".
(following either a draw, a death or 2 and a saved leadership)
"Same again next round"
"Yeah... till the game ends..."
"Yawn".

Bolt Action had a far better way of sorting close combat. I know 40k can't use quite the same way as BA is "same size humans" vs "same size humans" and 40k isn't. But that was a way better way of endiung close combat in a turn without the hassle of locked in combat till the game ended in a massive yawnfest.

Caederes wrote:

Also, as others have pointed out, weapons like Scatter Lasers aren't going to do well against new vehicles because it takes crap loads more shots than it used to for them to kill something like a Dreadnought

That'll be counteracted somewhat by more weapons being able to hurt them. Unless there's a change to the Wound chart, Dreadnoughts can now be killed from the front by bolters.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

changemod wrote:

I question your familiarity with the setting.
It's not a sci-fi really, more space fantasy.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Have you ever played 40k? Read the fluff? Because it sounds like you haven't.

Shooting and assault should try to be as equal as possible. And since shooting has an inherent advantage over assault, assault needs a boost. Even if the two are largely the same in actual damage inflicting power, assault should have more serious consequences. Shooting should pick a few guys off and at best pin you. Assault should rout the squad completely. Deleting entire units via shooting should be reserved for the most powerful of artillery or absolute masses of substained regular firepower.

So... I guess I need to pop up to the loft and open the box of stored rules and codices and take a photo of me with my original Rogue Trader rules. Sorry I don't own 2nd edition, I was too busy with real life at the time. My copy of third edition was so badly worn and falling to bits, it got thrown out once 4th edition came out and I moved house. The rest are there, bar a few old codices that have been carbooted over the years.

Yes, I get the setting and the fluff. It doesn't mean I want a return to the days when I set my figures up. My opponent sets his Blood Angels up and somehow manages to charge across the table first and second turn and wipe me after I had one round of shooting.

However, I do agree that close combat needs to be better. At the school club I ran, even the kids got bored with close combat going on forever.
"I need a 3 to hit and 4's to wound you, you need a 4 to hit and 3's to wound me".
(following either a draw, a death or 2 and a saved leadership)
"Same again next round"
"Yeah... till the game ends..."
"Yawn".

Bolt Action had a far better way of sorting close combat. I know 40k can't use quite the same way as BA is "same size humans" vs "same size humans" and 40k isn't. But that was a way better way of endiung close combat in a turn without the hassle of locked in combat till the game ended in a massive yawnfest.

They have succeeded in AoS to make the close combat very interesting and tactical so I can't see that it wouldn't work in 40k as well. The problem just might be to get there

 insaniak wrote:

Caederes wrote:

Also, as others have pointed out, weapons like Scatter Lasers aren't going to do well against new vehicles because it takes crap loads more shots than it used to for them to kill something like a Dreadnought

That'll be counteracted somewhat by more weapons being able to hurt them. Unless there's a change to the Wound chart, Dreadnoughts can now be killed from the front by bolters.

It's not like Dreadnoughts were super resilient to begin with or dominating the game.

Is it ideal? No. But I feel that it's at least better than the garbage vehicles are now.

I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.