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.

 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 won't be very efficient though.
A dread is what, T7 with 8 wounds now and a 3+ save?
So that's 3s to hit, 6s to wound and a 3+ save to bypass.
In order to inflict 8 unsaved wounds with just bolters, you'll need about 216 shots, according to mathhammer.
A lascannon can do that with 18, assuming you roll only 1s on the d6 for damage dealt.

Relying on low chances to kill tough targets is just not reliable. Necron players know this. It may be nice that you can hurt it, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bring a better tool for the job.

I think that vehicles got a nice buff but all the weapon became gauss.

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

What roll value is needed for a S4 weapon to wound a T7 piece?

Answer: We don't know right now.

And if dreadnoughts get nifty close combat weapons and a fair costing then you'll see a lot more of them.

Assault should be brutal and decisive. The meta has been very much in favour of shooting for a while.

There seem to be a some buffs to lower save armies (Orks, Tyranids), and Killa Kans for instance will benefit from the new vehicle rules.

We will see what happens when points costs get released. If Orks have been rewritten by someone who plays Orks, likes Orks and understands maths then that will be great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

What roll value is needed for a S4 weapon to wound a T7 piece?

Answer: We don't know right now.

I would imagine 6 or 7 on a D6.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

What roll value is needed for a S4 weapon to wound a T7 piece?

Answer: We don't know right now.

What reason is there to change the S vs T damage table unless the game is using a new type of dice?

Answer: there isn't one.

CplPunishment wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

What roll value is needed for a S4 weapon to wound a T7 piece?

Answer: We don't know right now.

What reason is there to change the S vs T damage table unless the game is using a new type of dice?

Answer: there isn't one.

Other than y'know, stats no longer being capped at 10?

Until I see something where vehicles still take a wound even if they're just hit by a shot--this is, to me, a much more vehicle friendly edition.
Vehicles are hot garbage right now unless skimmers or superheavies.

Ben2 wrote:
And if dreadnoughts get nifty close combat weapons and a fair costing then you'll see a lot more of them.

Assault should be brutal and decisive. The meta has been very much in favour of shooting for a while.

There seem to be a some buffs to lower save armies (Orks, Tyranids), and Killa Kans for instance will benefit from the new vehicle rules.

We will see what happens when points costs get released. If Orks have been rewritten by someone who plays Orks, likes Orks and understands maths then that will be great.

We can only hope that the people that made each armies rule loved the army that they were making and understood it as a fan can.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

My bad i wasn't referring to that.

In AoS rending is what we now have for AP. Rending -2 means a penaly of 2 on the save roll.
What i meant is that this system based on save penalties is less deadly to saves 4+ or less, compared to the old AP system.
Here is the full math, on the basis that AP 5-6 is -0, AP4 is -1, AP3 is -2, AP2 is -3 and AP1 is -4.

The +x% wounds refers to an AP - weapon.

Old AP:

AP 6 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP 6 vs all other saves: no modifier

AP5 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP5 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP5 vs all other saves: no modifier

AP4 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP4 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP4 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP4 vs all other saves: no modifier

AP3 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP3 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP3 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP3 vs armor 3: +300% wounds
AP3 vs all other saves: no modifier

AP2 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP2 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP2 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP2 vs armor 3: +300% wounds
AP2 vs armor 2: +600% wounds

AP1 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP1 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP1 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP1 vs armor 3: +300% wounds
AP1 vs armor 2: +600% wounds


New AP: (AP 5 and 6=No modifier, AP4= -1, AP3=-2, AP2=-3, AP1=-4)

AP 6 vs armor 6 no modifier
AP 6 vs all other saves: no modifier

AP5 vs armor 6: no modifier
AP5 vs armor 5: no modifier
AP5 vs all other saves: no modifier

AP4 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP4 vs armor 5: +25% wounds
AP4 vs armor 4: +33% wounds
AP4 vs armor 3: +50% wounds
AP4 vs armor 2: +100% wounds

AP3 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP3 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP3 vs armor 4: +66% wounds
AP3 vs armor 3: +100% wounds
AP3 vs armor 2: +200% wounds

AP2 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP2 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP2 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP2 vs armor 3: +250% wounds
AP2 vs armor 2: +400% wounds

AP1 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP1 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP1 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP1 vs armor 3: +300% wounds
AP1 vs armor 2: +500% wounds


Which means that the old system compared to the new one, rates like this: (new wounds/old wounds)

AP 6 vs armor 6: 83%
AP 6 vs all other saves: 100%

AP5 vs armor 6: 83%
AP5 vs armor 5: 66%
AP5 vs all other saves: 100%

AP4 vs armor 6: 100%
AP4 vs armor 5: 83%
AP4 vs armor 4: 66%
AP4 vs armor 3: 150%
AP4 vs armor 2: 200%

AP3 vs armor 6: 100%
AP3 vs armor 5: 100%
AP3 vs armor 4: 83%
AP3 vs armor 3: 66%
AP3 vs armor 2: 300%

AP2 vs armor 6: 100%
AP2 vs armor 5: 100%
AP2 vs armor 4: 100%
AP2 vs armor 3: 83%
AP2 vs armor 2: 66%

AP1 vs armor 6: 100%
AP1 vs armor 5: 100%
AP1 vs armor 4: 100%
AP1 vs armor 3: 100%
AP1 vs armor 2: 83%


You can see that for armor 4,5 and 6 you always suffer less wounds with this system.
Armor 3 takes less wounds against AP 2 and 3, but more from AP 4.
Armor 2 takes more wounds from AP 3 and 4, but less from AP 1 and 2.

In general weapons are less deadly, which is a buff to assault armies which never had problems with taking down the target but with getting there without getting deleted.

Warhammer Community wrote:We take a bit of a break from previewing the new edition’s rules today, to explore one of the galaxy’s war zones.

We saw already, in the galaxy map, that a wound has been torn through the Imperium by the mother of all warp storms. Today we have a look at exactly what this means for one familiar planet – a place you guys have all be fighting over for the last few weeks, and for some, even longer – Armageddon.

Spoiler:

As the rift opened up across the Imperium, Armageddon was lucky enough to not be cut off from Terra, but that is no guarantee of safety.
The world was already a battleground for an Imperium desperate to hold onto a vital manufacturing world, as they fought against the largest Ork Waaagh! in millennia, which is driven by the greenskins’ primal urge to re-take this former heart of their ancestral empire*.

Since the warp rift tore through the heart of the galaxy, Armageddon has found itself directly in the path of The Blood Crusade, a vast legion of Khorne’s Daemons pouring into realspace.

Spoiler:

The world looks set for one of the greatest wars in Imperial history. Greenskin, human and followers of the Blood God – all have unfinished business on the ash wastes of Armageddon, and only time will tell which force will triumph…

Armageddon is just one of the war zones erupting in renewed conflict in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. We’ll have news from a few others as the new edition approach. Exciting times.

Tomorrow, we’ll be back with some more news on new rules as we look at the Shooting phase.

*Say what? Find out more HERE.

Shooting Phase tomorrow.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

What roll value is needed for a S4 weapon to wound a T7 piece?

Answer: We don't know right now.

All the changes we've seen have kept the original rules mostly intact. With the no cap to S and T, the chart is most likely going to stay the same (with the same formula) except 6s will always wound.

I knew it! I knew the whole crowd getting up at arms about the lore and setting shifting would be off the mark a bit. I get not liking NuMarines or Guilliman taking the head of the empire but I had a feeling that all they would be doing is relaunching old campaign settings.

Armageddon, OK sure, Orks and Khorne.... Again!? It's the same crap, let me guess Yarrick will be there against Gazzy and the Black Templars and BA will be out en force.

Not seeing anything ground breaking and lore changing here anyway. It's just the War for Armageddon part 4, where Yarrick is about 300 years old because he refuses to stop chasing Abbedons record for failed attempts at ones goal

Interesting analysis Spoletta - perhaps it balances the fact that marines become 100% more durable in cover than they were before. That is good from an overall "fairness" as to who wins angle, but still bad from a "How the game plays" as far as I'm concerned since marines skulking in cover all the time annoys me. A bolter for example is now 33% less effective vs guard, which has it's merits I suppose, as long as they did a good job mathhammering and playtesting everything to account for it.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I knew it! I knew the whole crowd getting up at arms about the lore and setting shifting would be off the mark a bit. I get not liking NuMarines or Guilliman taking the head of the empire but I had a feeling that all they would be doing is relaunching old campaign settings.

Armageddon, OK sure, Orks and Khorne.... Again!? It's the same crap, let me guess Yarrick will be there against Gazzy and the Black Templars and BA will be out en force.

Not seeing anything ground breaking and lore changing here anyway. It's just the War for Armageddon part 4, where Yarrick is about 300 years old because he refuses to stop chasing Abbedons record for failed attempts at ones goal

Some old and some new.

Old
Armageddon
Cadia(now with less Cadia itself!)

New
Damocles
Baal
Ultramar
Fenris


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 theharrower wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

What roll value is needed for a S4 weapon to wound a T7 piece?

Answer: We don't know right now.

All the changes we've seen have kept the original rules mostly intact. With the no cap to S and T, the chart is most likely going to stay the same (with the same formula) except 6s will always wound.

So have we seen the special rules for a Dreadnought? For vehicles/MCs in general?

That's the point I'm trying, albeit not as well as I'd like, to get across.

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

They may be functionally more fragile, but the chance for them to be one-shot by the first lascannon that sneezes in their general direction is gone. On top of that, their 'wounds' have almost tripled, going from a 3HP vehicle, to an 8 wound vehicle. And, now, unless they are in cover, the Dread currently has no save, whereas in 8th, they will. The AP of weapons could modify it of course, but a modified save > no save.

Realistically, they're going to be more resilient against the weapons currently used to take them out (HYMP, Scatter lasers, etc.), and mathematically similar in resilience to the weapons that should be used to take them out, currently. And even against the one anti-vehicle weapon we've been shown, the Dread will still get a save against it. A hail-mary save, but a save nontheless. They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it, but they're also not going to be a waste of points that turns into a crater or a piece of terrain on the first turn of the game.

 Rippy wrote:
Goodbye broken summoning

Goodbye broken summoning, hello broken summoning.
Unless, of course, they've learnt their lesson from AoS Matched Play where they nerfed it too hard and made it pointless most of the time. I certainly hope they have.

If it's a literal port of AoS Matched Play summoning then it'll be even worse than it is there... at least in AoS it allows you to 'Deep Strike' certain units in a system that otherwise (aside from a few exceptions - looking at you Stormcast) lacks it.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
The worst part of overwatch imho was killing the front couple of models and vastly stretching the charge distance. Often this caused the charge to fail, and the unit just sits there and dies. Overwatch has killed more of my units this way than cc ever did. Hopefully 8e will fix this.

Overwatch will most surely be removed as an army wide rule and just added to a select few (or not so few) warscrolls - fire warriors for example.

I'd be fine with it if it was limited to a few basic troop units - tac marines, fire warriors, guardsmen. That would give these kind of riflemen units a solid and flavorful advantage without allowing it to the nastier special weapon platforms like stern guard, riptides and flyrants.

 Vryce wrote:

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

They may be functionally more fragile, but the chance for them to be one-shot by the first lascannon that sneezes in their general direction is gone. On top of that, their 'wounds' have almost tripled, going from a 3HP vehicle, to an 8 wound vehicle. And, now, unless they are in cover, the Dread currently has no save, whereas in 8th, they will. The AP of weapons could modify it of course, but a modified save > no save.

Realistically, they're going to be more resilient against the weapons currently used to take them out (HYMP, Scatter lasers, etc.), and mathematically similar in resilience to the weapons that should be used to take them out, currently. And even against the one anti-vehicle weapon we've been shown, the Dread will still get a save against it. A hail-mary save, but a save nontheless. They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it, but they're also not going to be a waste of points that turns into a crater or a piece of terrain on the first turn of the game.

Your pro-change argument is "They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it" which makes absolutely no sense because they were NEVER gods of the battlefield.

What you're actually saying is "At BEST they will be something they never actually were and at WORST they will be just as worthless as before". Not exactly a compelling argument.

Dreadnoughts *are* terrible in virtually every edition of 40k unless they have AV13 (even then they are marginally more useful). Making them able to survive a single hit isn't much of a benefit if they still can't do anything useful considering their MAIN benefit was tarpitting units and slowly killing them. With a 6+ to wound from even a guardsmen they won't be able to do that either and then their target will just run away.

changemod wrote:


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.

Except it means you can summon any tool you want. And some abilities will bring units on without psykers.

The world looks set for one of the greatest wars in Imperial history. Greenskin, human and followers of the Blood God – all have unfinished business on the ash wastes of Armageddon, and only time will tell which force will triumph…

Armageddon is just one of the war zones erupting in renewed conflict in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. We’ll have news from a few others as the new edition approach. Exciting times.

The Warzone Armageddon article is interesting. Such a Warzone release will hopefully come with some new Ork kits (in addition to a new buggy). Would an Angron model fit in there too?

Even remaking old models would be very good.

Kommandos and Tankbustas in plastic would be welcome

 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.

Even in modern battles and wars like WW2 and Vietnam, hand to hand combat was still common, especially when you're trying to shift dug in infantry in urban areas.

That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.

My preference would be 60/40 in favour of shooting, although I appreciate that there are Ork and Tyranid armies to consider.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.

I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.

Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.

I would prefer if shooting would mainly be for pinning troops and close range assault, which would include close range shootong, would be the way to actually remove the enemy. It worls well in some games and mimics the "real war" bit better than lines of guys shooting/charging each other. That said, I'm eager to see how they handle pinning in 8th.

Warhams-77 wrote:

The world looks set for one of the greatest wars in Imperial history. Greenskin, human and followers of the Blood God – all have unfinished business on the ash wastes of Armageddon, and only time will tell which force will triumph…

Armageddon is just one of the war zones erupting in renewed conflict in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. We’ll have news from a few others as the new edition approach. Exciting times.

The Warzone Armageddon article is interesting. Such a Warzone release will hopefully come with some new Ork kits (in addition to a new buggy). Would an Angron model fit in their too?

New ork kits would be amazing but GW have clearly stated that focus will be on different kinds of space marines.

 Rippy wrote:
Goodbye broken summoning

People can say what they want about "New GW", but this is just beautiful, both in its implication and execution.
Good riddance to summoned units, balancing a game well is simply impossible when one army on the table can just completely toss aside the point limit.

Spoletta wrote:
Keeping in line with AoS rules being imported in 40K, we can foresee the following buffs for assault (some we already know, some are speculation):

- 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.

- *Speculation* When removing models, the controlling player removes a model of his choice.

- *Speculation* Overwatch is no longer a mechanic of the game, but only a special rule of some models.

- No more templates, you can optimize your formations.

- Assault from transports (was this confirmed?)

- More reliable deepstriking *speculation* with assault from deep strike, but requiring a 9" on the charge most of the time.

- Increased speed on some dedicated melee units, like hormagaunts.

- Chargers strike first. Everything else follows an I GO You GO order.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, remember that the meta will shift A LOT due to the new vehicle and mostrous creatures profiles.

Forget High ROF mid strenght weapons as the way to go, you will never stop a dreadnaught or a carnifex with those (32 Str7 AP -1, like HYMP, hits to stop a dreadnaught compared to the 9 required now). High strenght low ROF weapons will be back in the game, giving a lot more breath to non elite assault units.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this. And making it so that shooting is geneally a 'light attack' and assault is more hard hitting is a good way to go. You should be rewarded for making it into assault.

Caederes wrote:
Striking first if you charge becomes amazing if you don't have to take casualties from the front anymore. Even with the whole retreat mechanic the fact that you still make at least one unit worthless for a full turn and you get to take full advantage of your assault units that (in the case of Orks especially) classically would get cut down before they could strike is a good trade I feel. People forget that shooting the unit that just got put in the open from a friendly retreat only works if you have the units to shoot them - the game seems to be about making assault as a whole better, deincentivizing death-stars and making numerous assault units more worthwhile. Not having to take casualties from the front (I assume this will be the case) will make charging so much easier, and once you get there, even units like Hormagaunts with sufficient numbers should still tear through most other Troop units with little difficulty. Context is everything.

Consider also that the AP system is gone; Bolters no longer ignore 5+ armour saves....which is what most light assault units in the game like Orks, Hormagaunts, Acolyte Hybrids, etc have. People really need to think deeply about what this means for horde armies now.

Agreed on all of those. Going from what we have seen so far and what we can infer from AoS (considering the rule changes have been based to 80% on AoS stuff makes it a relatively safe bet) Assault and particularly assault focused races/armies are coming back with a vengeance. Even as someone who is going to start Tau with the new Edition I think that close combat has to be (reasonably) stronger than shooting overall to make the game balanced and fun (for more than one player at the table, that is). Shooting armies always have the benefit of being able to inflict damage much sooner, in a more focused fashion and hurt and punish assault units until the very turn and phase they finally get to charge. You will also suffer from less return damage and if you do from already damaged/crippled units. You can extend the amount of turns you get to shoot those units coming for you if you take out transports etc. If close combat isn't deadlier then shooting armies will always dominate as can be seen with the current edition, and that makes several armies instantly much weaker than the rest and elevates a few to the absolute top (cough, Eldar and Tau right now).

Which is a bloody shame considering how important close combat is for 40k both in the game system, the universe and the fluff.

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

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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 won't be very efficient though.
A dread is what, T7 with 8 wounds now and a 3+ save?
So that's 3s to hit, 6s to wound and a 3+ save to bypass.
In order to inflict 8 unsaved wounds with just bolters, you'll need about 216 shots, according to mathhammer.
A lascannon can do that with 18, assuming you roll only 1s on the d6 for damage dealt.

Relying on low chances to kill tough targets is just not reliable. Necron players know this. It may be nice that you can hurt it, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bring a better tool for the job.

Absolutely this. A negligible vulnerability to small arms like Bolters and Lasguns is nothing compared to the following
- Complete removal of instant kills through explosion/destroyed results from the vehicle damage table. Nothing will instantly destroy a full HP anymore as far as we know right now, massively increasing their viability compared to monstrous creatures. Also no more permanent immobilization that makes any close range oriented vehicle almost as useless as being destroyed if it happens to them in the deployment zone. Sure, the chance of getting instantly blown up by e.g. a lascannon wasn't that high, but if you factor in both the chance of destruction and immobilization... well, then you now why barely anyone bothered
with AV12/13 short range vehicles unless they had extremely favorable special rules. Meanwhile Monstrous Creatures/high toughness single models didn't give a feth, lost a hitpoint and moved/slaughtered on.
And that's before mentioning that reduced stats is indefinitely preferable to not being able to shoot/assault/assault at all because of being shaken or stunned.

- In the case of Dreadnoughts and other AV12 -> T7 vehicles they get more than 50% as resistant as they are now, assuming weapon profiles for S6 and S7 weapons remain largely the same. Assuming similar point costs as in this Edition, those cheap mass spam lower strength AT weapons were that was absolutely murdering anything below AV14, even by simply creating an overload of glancing hits (absolutely deadly with the structure point system that was introduced after the 5th edition). Just think about how effective those will be when a Dread gets +1 on its armour save for being in cover... Meanwhile, assuming point costs remain similar to now, a Lascannon and equivalents are an expensive investment and now needed to efficiently deal with the new toughness+save vehicles. Units that are able to "boat" them (e.g. Devastators) are often fragile and can be focused down. They are hardly spammable without serious drawbacks compared to those high volume S6/S7 weapons that can also efficiently kill infantry when no wortwhile vehicle target is around.

- No more getting absolutely ripped to shreds by Monstrous creatures. This made close combat dreads pointless and unreliable unless used for tarpitting and killing infantry and few selected other unit types. Considering how likely it was to face monstrous creatures in an all-comers scenario like a tournament, there was little reason to field them unless they were essentially undercosted and had high potential like Murderfang. Now a close combat Dread will very likely be able to duke it out with many monstrous creatures and inflict serious damage with it's many attacks and DCCWs, just as they should have been able to to begin with.

From what I can see there is no reason to assume why Dreads and vehicles in general are now worse off than before (which to be fair is a rather low bar right now).

 thenewgozoku wrote:

 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.

Not to mention it also gives the writers both the precedent to give the traitor primarchs a really active role now that they have opponents on their level rather than being damned to eternally sulk in the background and barely have any consequential appearances, while also giving GW the chance to bring more loyalist Primarchs back into the action (particularly Vulcan and Russ, particularly the latter would be pretty epic and is kinda needed as well, just imagine the now badly battered Wolves with their uncertain future getting their Primarch back and making one hell of a comeback). They can still freeze the story into another perpetual stalemate again later, until the next big storyline progression in a few years. Blowing up Cadia was necessary as well, it was literally the storytelling equivalent of winning by spawn-camping in a Multiplayer shooter which gets pretty boring after almost two decades.

 davou wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.

I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.

Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.

Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.

I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.

Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.

Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.

Nah it doesn't happen actually, in all my games of AoS it happened only once, and even there we still had 2 skirmishes going on outside the grand melee. AoS has an extremely dynamic play, even if the shooting is actually a bit too strong, so i think that importing the AoS rules into 40k will make it a lot of good.

 davou wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.

I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.

Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.

Armour that can deflect a tank round is with us in 2017, never mind 40,000AD

The fluff also says that teleporting terminators suffer mishaps, but that seems to have gone in 8th.

I've nothing against close combat, but the vast majority of casualties in combat stem from artillery fire. Yes, it's only a game, but I would like 40K to be tilted towards shooting, whilst still finding a role for CC.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.

I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.

Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.

Armour that can deflect a tank round is with us in 2017, never mind 40,000AD

The fluff also says that teleporting terminators suffer mishaps, but that seems to have gone in 8th.

I've nothing against close combat, but the vast majority of casualties in combat stem from artillery fire. Yes, it's only a game, but I would like 40K to be tilted towards shooting, whilst still finding a role for CC.

got a reference about termies and deep strike no longer suffering mishap? I've been watching the rumors pretty closely and haven't seen that one yet




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:


Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.

the changes proposed are meant to give us that 50-50 you're talking about; As it stands its about 80-20 in favor of shooting.