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:[Hmm... this makes me suspicious. Why isn't cover universal?

My guess is Infantry are smaller compared to Monstrous Creatures or vehicles/Dreadnaughts so they wouldn't be able to take cover like Infantry can. I am taking it as a crater can be about 1 meter/3 feet deep or so, and a Monstrous Creature, vehicles wouldn't be able to cower down and hide so easily. Also skimmers and flyers would be over them so why would a universal rule apply to them?

Remember it only mentioned craters as an example, not all types of cover.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.

But why is cover abstracted?

Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?

Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.

But why is cover abstracted?

Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?

So... a tank doesn't get cover from a shallow crater, and a Marine doesn't get cover from a shallow crater... so we'll abstract it and say that one does and one doesn't.

If they both don't, then why give it to one and not another?

 CoreCommander wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.

It plays ok. If you don't trust me on that you can try by yourself with the fanmade 40k aos scrolls which I'm not going to repost for the n-th time .

This had been said several times, but sure, I'll say again.
Having your guys disengage at will so that you whole army can blast an assault unit to shreads with their shoting is an awful mechainc. It is literally one of the worst, most idiotic decisions GW could have made regarding melee which wasn't amazing in 7th to begin with. More than that, they seem to encourage this tactic in this new article.

Removing initiative is also really bad, but that's a whole other story.

 nintura wrote:
Welp, new heavy weapon rules makes my Salamanders army happy. Multi-melta in every tac squad now. Who cares about -1 when you get re-rolls.

I second that. Salamanders hopefully keeping re-rolls to wound with flamers and Vulkan twin-linking meltas makes a Salamanders 10 man Tac squad perfect with a flamer and multi-melta.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.

But why is cover abstracted?

Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?

So... a tank doesn't get cover from a shallow crater, and a Marine doesn't get cover from a shallow crater... so we'll abstract it and say that one does and one doesn't.

If they both don't, then why give it to one and not another?

A Space Marine can crouch, crawl and articulate in other manners that the model cannot. Tanks generally can't do that.

"Heavy weapons are worth talking about too. These no longer snap fire if you move, and instead they have a flat -1 to hit modifier for moving units. This applies to all models with heavy weapons, vehicles included. There are a few other factors that affect hit rolls too – smoke launchers on a vehicle, for example, have the same effect of -1 to hit."

Interesting, so to hit modifiers ARE in the game. Lets say an ork has a +5 to hit and then moves with heavy weapon and targets a vehicle with a smoke launcher effect giving him a -2 to hit, is he not able to hit the vehicle at all now? That is the case in other war games with to hit modifiers such as Flames of War.

This also is I guess a buff to vehicles now that they can move at any speed and fire all their weapons just at -1 to hit, instead of snapfiring? Predators just got better. This is a nerf to current monstrous creatures who have no such penalties. Riptide that moved firing his burst cannon on a 5+ lol.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.

It plays ok. If you don't trust me on that you can try by yourself with the fanmade 40k aos scrolls which I'm not going to repost for the n-th time .

This had been said several times, but sure, I'll say again.
Having youe guys disengage at will so that you whole army can blast an assault unit to shreads with their shoting is an awful mechainc. It is literally one of the worst, most idiotic decisions GW could have made regarding melee which wasnt amazing in 7th to begin with. More than that, they seem to encourage this tactic in this new article.

Removing initiative is also really bad, bu that's a whole other story.

I agree with you on the disengagement mechanic and had hoped that it won't be the way it is in 40k, but ultimately it could be balanced with the scrolls themselves so while it doesn't feel right at all it might still work in the new rules.

Initiative removal shifts the focus on the game from being a commander trying to direct his troops and hope they can pull it (targeting mechanic in 4th, initiative etc) to taking the active role of frontline field commander who can directly influence the fight he's in and nearby brawls. Probably not the best explanation, but it looks like this to me. It is a quirk of the new game, not neccessary worse or better as it a fundamental shift in the design.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.

But why is cover abstracted?

Because a fully simulated ballistic trajectory calculation would take a decent supercomputer a couple of days per shot.

Some level of abstraction is required for the game to function as a game. The question is, or should be, "is this level of abstraction fun and sensible?"
And I think that, yeah, big, non-squishy vehicles should not be able to get a benefit that would normally only apply to beings with the ability to go prone.
On the other hand, before you say it, if your crater is big and deep enough to hide a vehicle sensibly and the default crater rules don't reflect this, don't use them for it.

I'd prefer if the cover would be somehow abstracted, rather than trying to decide whether the model is 74% or 76% visible for every shooting attack.

 Asmodai wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.

But why is cover abstracted?

Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?

So... a tank doesn't get cover from a shallow crater, and a Marine doesn't get cover from a shallow crater... so we'll abstract it and say that one does and one doesn't.

If they both don't, then why give it to one and not another?

A Space Marine can crouch, crawl and articulate in other manners that the model cannot. Tanks generally can't do that.

And now I have an image of a land raider, all hunched over, trying to army craw through a crater. "You know we can still see you right? Right?"

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.

It plays ok. If you don't trust me on that you can try by yourself with the fanmade 40k aos scrolls which I'm not going to repost for the n-th time .

This had been said several times, but sure, I'll say again.
Having your guys disengage at will so that you whole army can blast an assault unit to shreads with their shoting is an awful mechainc. It is literally one of the worst, most idiotic decisions GW could have made regarding melee which wasn't amazing in 7th to begin with. More than that, they seem to encourage this tactic in this new article.

Removing initiative is also really bad, but that's a whole other story.

That rule has been played in AoS for 2 years now, and no one had problems with it. Actually to shoot a unit to bits in AoS you don't even need to disengage.

Also, since they are taking so many pages from AoS, i except charge rules to be imported as well. If those are in, then when you charge you engage multiple enemy units, not a single one.
If they want to shoot at your guys they will have to forfeit a whole turn with 3 or more units easily.
8th edition is shaping up to be so melee dominated, that this rule is needed for those who want to play gunlines, so that they can design the list accordingly with multiple waves.

I like thsi new Shooting Phase. My tanks and Broadsides can move again!

Flyers with a -1 to hit with heavy weapons is a bit unexpected. Assuming they have to move.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.

But why is cover abstracted?

Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?

So... a tank doesn't get cover from a shallow crater, and a Marine doesn't get cover from a shallow crater... so we'll abstract it and say that one does and one doesn't.

If they both don't, then why give it to one and not another?

Because a Marine can lie down.

 Sarigar wrote:
Flyers with a -1 to hit with heavy weapons is a bit unexpected. Assuming they have to move.

I sincerely doubt it'll work that way, fliers are *supposed* to be zipping around the battlefield.

I can't imagine they'll take penalties for simply moving the way they're supposed to.

Yeah, I guess Flyers will not suffer such limitations.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Flyers with a -1 to hit with heavy weapons is a bit unexpected. Assuming they have to move.

I sincerely doubt it'll work that way, fliers are *supposed* to be zipping around the battlefield.

I can't imagine they'll take penalties for simply moving the way they're supposed to.

Or the flyer versions of weapons will be classed differently.
Though I can see a Valkyrie or similar hover-mode types having weapons that work best when hovering and less so while jetting around at top speed.

Oh man, this is great. My Pathfinders and Broadsides can reposition now without making them useless for a turn; heavy weapon squads no longer have to be static to fire. Assault squads loaded up with Plasma pistols could be a strong unit. Hand flamers could be interesting too. Color me impressed.

Now I only need the posibility to arm my Assault Marines with two pistols and buy a box of 28mm scale Cowboy hats.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Flyers with a -1 to hit with heavy weapons is a bit unexpected. Assuming they have to move.

I sincerely doubt it'll work that way, fliers are *supposed* to be zipping around the battlefield.

I can't imagine they'll take penalties for simply moving the way they're supposed to.

Or the flyer versions of weapons will be classed differently.
Though I can see a Valkyrie or similar hover-mode types having weapons that work best when hovering and less so while jetting around at top speed.

No way to be sure yet, but GC will also have the same penalty. Just speculating based off of information provided.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.

But why is cover abstracted?

Because miniatures can't crouch, hide behind tree trunks or duck behind walls. Abstracting area terrain simulates those possibilities.

And because everything in a miniature wargame is abstracted. But you know this.

 CoreCommander wrote:

I agree with you on the disengagement mechanic and had hoped that it won't be the way it is in 40k, but ultimately it could be balanced with the scrolls themselves so while it doesn't feel right at all it might still work in the new rules.

Honestly, unless consolidation into melee is going to be a thing I have a hard time seeing how anything can mitigate that.

 CoreCommander wrote:


Initiative removal shifts the focus on the game from being a commander trying to direct his troops and hope they can pull it (targeting mechanic in 4th, initiative etc) to taking the active role of frontline field commander who can directly influence the fight he's in and nearby brawls. Probably not the best explanation, but it seems like this to me. It is a quirk of the new game.

It makes no sense thoug, neither from lore nor from gameplay perspective. Charges strike first is semi-ok, although I'd much prefer units just getting some sort of initiative bonus. But sure, whatever.
Alternating activations though is really bad. I mean yeah initiative wasn't perfect but along with WS it did a decent job of explaining the unit's abilities and role in melee combat. Of course not everybody is supposed to have a chance in CQC. Some units rely on their superior speed, some rely on armor, some are straight up really hard to hit or just extremely tough, some are good all-around and some are just punching bags that were not expected to live anyway. There is no inherent problem in such state of things, only particularly broken units like, say, wulfen. The new system is going to take a huge chunk of this diversity and tactics away and just throw in out the window all replaced with "feth off is't my turn to hit your guys". It has no benefits other than sparing you some time. And I'm not even going to go into how immersion-breaking it is.

Orthon wrote:

This also is I guess a buff to vehicles now that they can move at any speed and fire all their weapons just at -1 to hit, instead of snapfiring? Predators just got better. This is a nerf to current monstrous creatures who have no such penalties. Riptide that moved firing his burst cannon on a 5+ lol.

Except to Tyranids, which all their weapons are Assault.

I expect vehicles and MC's will ignore the -1 on Heavy weapons in the same way that they currently all have Relentless. I just hope they've removed the idiotic restrictions on vehicles moving and shooting altogether.

more info from GW facebook:

"But, you'll probably be able to more more than 6" with most vehicles as movement isn't standardised any more. And you can shoot your turret weapon AND hull weapon at only -1. Your transports are going to be fine, trust us."

Q: "now I can finally move my long fangs around, and my blood claws will me amazing in close combat. are negative modifiers to BS cumulative? say for example a heavy weapon unit moved and the enemy triggered their smoke launcher."
A: "Yes, they will be.
Hitting a vehicle in a cloud, while moving, with a sniper rifle is pretty tricky."

Haha that's a cool answer.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

It makes no sense thoug, neither from lore nor from gameplay perspective. Charges strike first is semi-ok, although I'd much prefer units just getting some sort of initiative bonus. But sure, whatever.

It is just my interpretation - a metaphor to ease the transition. I'm 100% that the decision was purely for the sake of gamey mechanics.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Alternating activations though is really bad.

( I'm sliding in before Lord Kragan or someone else smugly interjects to say "Have you ever play AoS?" )
The majority of people playing AoS on the forums and IRL that I know point that the alternating combat mechanic is their favourite one from the AoS rules. You still get to choose which unit to engage with which one, but now the choice is based on one less unit statistic and instead you get to play with some combos and light to mediocre dilemmas (both for you and your opponent). For me it works better.

 Vector Strike wrote:
more info from GW facebook:

"But, you'll probably be able to more more than 6" with most vehicles as movement isn't standardised any more. And you can shoot your turret weapon AND hull weapon at only -1. Your transports are going to be fine, trust us."

So like in AoS. Vehicles will be platforms of destruction as they should be! I suppose that they will bring the fact that a unit/squad can fire different weapon they carry to different objetives simultanously? That will be cool.

holy crap..... Devastators can march and shoot now? Im so happy I just built 7 heavy bolters