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.

Ooh I want to test my new Moritat with these rules.

 CoreCommander wrote:

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.

I'm sure it is. It's just that GW has shown time and time again that whlile they are capable of making horrible balance decisions and not understand the mechanics of their own game just as often as making really good ones.

 CoreCommander wrote:

( 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.

40k doesn't need to become AoS to be good. There is also no need to fully demolish systems that only needed some sensible changes to work as intended.

All I know is my Triple Flamer Leman Russ Demolisher is now Viable!

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

40k doesn't need to become AoS to be good.

That's what I've been saying in this thread, but the changes are for real so there's nothing we can do...

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

There is also no need to fully demolish systems that only needed some sensible changes to work as intended.

IMO it needed a complete rewrite. I has become boring, repetitive and completely inadequate to play the size of battles it tried to advertise. A completely new system was needed, but we got copy pasted AoS (which was proto 40k anyway). It's something...

Whatever, no need to spin the "was it called for" wheel again".

Are hand flamers pistols?

In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).

 thenewgozoku wrote:
Are hand flamers pistols?

Hand flamer Template 3 6 Pistol

I like what I saw regarding the shooting phase

v0iddrgn wrote:
In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).

This.

Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)

On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.

I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.

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

With the way blast weapons will be working, going to call it now, missile dev's will be very common against certain (a lot) armies. Reposition to blast their hordes or reposition to krak their vehicles.

Pistols shooting into assault is fine by me. And moving and firing with heavies is wonderful. I like that cover is a save bonus but I'm slightly concerned by this different cover types thing. I'm sure it'll be fine though.

A previous edition had shooting at the nearest unit being a requirement. Are they bringing that back? I think it would work. It would make lone characters safer, and maybe snipers can ignore it, making them useful.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).

This.

Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)

On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.

I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.

Multiple staggered gun lines, if they are used will surely not be allowed to fall back if enemies are behind them as well. Deep strike units behind the unit and assault from the front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).

This.

Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)

On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.

I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.

Multiple staggered gun lines, if they are used will surely not be allowed to fall back if enemies are behind them as well. Deep strike units behind the unit and assault with another from the front.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).

This.

Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)

On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.

I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.

Everyone is also looking at 'The Guard Squad' was Assaulted and then the remaining 2-3 run away leaving the Assault Squad to face all of the incoming fire. I am looking at 'There are three Guards left, why should we finish them off, lets disengage behind that cover over there and next turn we can Assault another Fresh Squad'.

Shooting rules were a little surprising for me. I was sure that cover was going to convey a negative hit modifer which would dovetail nicely with the flamers auto-hitting rule. Instead we get a positive armour modifer, which is really interesting for armies with an already decent armour save

Multiple staggered gun lines, if they are used will surely not be allowed to fall back if enemies are behind them as well. Deep strike units behind the unit and assault with another from the front.

Lol, I'm thinking we're basically going to be completely rethinking ALL tactics.

This is going to be really, really fun.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A previous edition had shooting at the nearest unit being a requirement. Are they bringing that back? I think it would work. It would make lone characters safer, and maybe snipers can ignore it, making them useful.

I see no mention of it, which is good because it would mean your well trained units and commanders arent smart enough to figure out that the heavy weapons over there are more dangerous than the guys with the rags and knives.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
Shooting rules were a little surprising for me. I was sure that cover was going to convey a negative hit modifer which would dovetail nicely with the flamers auto-hitting rule. Instead we get a positive armour modifer, which is really interesting for armies with an already decent armour save

I was thinking the same thing.

Will definitely help marines, who a lot of people were expecting to be multi-wound.

Certainly will make your average Marine more survivable.

40k doesn't need to become AoS to be good. There is also no need to fully demolish systems that only needed some sensible changes to work as intended.

Thing is, that system was flawed, irrespective of balance issues. There simply wasn't all that much to do in a game of 40K. There was little interaction between players, there was little in the way of unit interaction either, opposing or friendly, and little on-table strategy outside of target priority and the occasional bit of movement shenanigans.

In the 30 years since the fundamentals were established, we've seen the rise of systems that are both more elegant and more complex, games where each turn involves both players and that present a range of equally valid, but wildly diverse, options each turn, options which feel like they mean something in the context of the game. Games where you feel like you're competing with your opponents strategic thinking, not with their ability to google the latest net list and mentally press autoplay.

WMH, Infinity, X Wing, Guild Ball etc etc just offer more engaging gameplay right now than 40K, even if 40K were fairly balanced.

There's no guarantees that 8th will solve this issue, but if they can at least shift it into a space where it's spectacle is still there (something admittedly few other games match) but it doesn't need a degree's worth of reading to learn the rules, an amount of negotiation in excess of what's needed to sort out North Korea, the following day booked off from work and the inescapable sense that you got dicked because you took models you like rather than number crunching the most efficient choice (or worse, that you could have number crunched the most efficient choice and it still wouldn't have helped) then it will have made huge progress, and will find space in a lot of people's play sessions that wouldn't have considered it currently. Myself included.

With talk about summing changing, it's DEFINITELY too strong as it is, but I liked one of the personal setups people had prior to general's handbook: you had to actually have the unit in your army on the table to gain access to be able to summon more. Want to gain the spell "summon demon prince"? Better have it in your list. Don't plan on having 6 units of horrors, plus greater daemons only, then summon up an army of fiends and bloodcrushers. Doesn't work, cuz they weren't in the list to begin with. I realize GW didn't take that route, but I do feel the current summoning is too limited (cuz in addition to points, most summoning of good units also requires a high roll, and good luck if you aren't a LoC). Personally, I think there was a better balanced choice for summoning. I play daemons, and even I thought the Daemon factory was nuts. I refused to play it. Yeah, I had some summoning in my list, but it was minor. A unit popped in here or there. Nothing crazy.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).

This.

Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)

On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.

I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.

Everyone is also looking at 'The Guard Squad' was Assaulted and then the remaining 2-3 run away leaving the Assault Squad to face all of the incoming fire. I am looking at 'There are three Guards left, why should we finish them off, lets disengage behind that cover over there and next turn we can Assault another Fresh Squad'.

Except in that scenario your army will have a whole turn to reposition, shoot at, launch counter assaults, etc...

 timetowaste85 wrote:
With talk about summing changing, it's DEFINITELY too strong as it is, but I liked one of the personal setups people had prior to general's handbook: you had to actually have the unit in your army on the table to gain access to be able to summon more. Want to gain the spell "summon demon prince"? Better have it in your list. Don't plan on having 6 units of horrors, plus greater daemons only, then summon up an army of fiends and bloodcrushers. Doesn't work, cuz they weren't in the list to begin with. I realize GW didn't take that route, but I do feel the current summoning is too limited (cuz in addition to points, most summoning of good units also requires a high roll, and good luck if you aren't a LoC). Personally, I think there was a better balanced choice for summoning. I play daemons, and even I thought the Daemon factory was nuts. I refused to play it. Yeah, I had some summoning in my list, but it was minor. A unit popped in here or there. Nothing crazy.

I like summoning from a fluff and thematic perspective, but really I can't see it balanced in a gameplay way in a game where you have a limited amount of resources to bring units to the table. If other people receive more units for free then it begins to break.

A balanced summoning system in this context will probably need Summoning-Specific units (So, units that can only be in battlefield by summoning them) and Summoner casters with the cost of the fact that they can summon those units included into their cost. I'm not talking about converting 1:1 point cost, but a slightly more expensive summoner compared to a equivalent non-summoner caster, for example.

I use very un-restricted summoning in my narrative games because it is cool, but in a balance game is very hard to make it right to all players involved.

 Vryce wrote:
Well, in the Q&A earlier this week, the dev's talked about the conflict between the IoM & Chaos taking more of a center stage on the galactic scale, so a starter set with SM/CSM

IS TERRIBLE AND SHOULD NOT BE!!!
Make it imperial guards against cultist, or Sisters of battle versus daemon, or even sisters + guards + mechanicus against CSM + cultists + daemons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

You also can’t shoot if there is an enemy with 1″ of you. The exception to this rule is pistols.

Suck on that flamers and meltas!

*Use my pairs of inferno pistols and hand flamers to kill H.B.M.C.'s models*

 nintura wrote:
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?"

Sorry, but the mental image is even funnier with a dreadnought. Imagine it trying to use its silly, super short legs to crawl !

v0iddrgn wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).

This.

Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)

On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.

I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.

Everyone is also looking at 'The Guard Squad' was Assaulted and then the remaining 2-3 run away leaving the Assault Squad to face all of the incoming fire. I am looking at 'There are three Guards left, why should we finish them off, lets disengage behind that cover over there and next turn we can Assault another Fresh Squad'.

Except in that scenario your army will have a whole turn to reposition, shoot at, launch counter assaults, etc...

True, but you never know what the situation will be at the time you make the choice, it is just another option.
In 6th (never got to play 7th) I do not know the times I had an Assault Squad Devastate a Unit and then was Stuck In while still in great shape for another Assault. This also come to the 'Guard Player' being able to mess up an Assault by not running away, Forcing the Assault Unit to kill off the last three or Disengaging. I know there were times I did not want to kill off the Remaining Models only to be facing a gun line waiting for me to do such. It also comes down to, what kind of movement do Bikes, Calvary and Jump Pack give you. If it is far enough during a Disengage, the cover might be worth the turn of doing nothing as 100 Shots come your way.

So can TEQ get a 1+ save if they're in cover (with a roll of 1 still failing of course)?

And wow at the new pistols rules. Looks like I'll be giving Infernus Pistols and Hand Flamers to every BA unit I can...

Also looks like SoB Seraphim might be borderline OP now...

well there might be a reason to take plasma pistols now

 insaniak wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Negligible? Against -2 weapons (like krak missiles) you have a 5+ save, which is huge! 50% more hits needed for the same result!

Sure. Except that krak missile is also now wounding on a 3+ instead of glancing on a 4.

That was already factored into his math...

 Latro_ wrote:
well there might be a reason to take plasma pistols now

I saw the rules and said to myself 'Whelp, looks like my Berzerkers are going to visit the armory soon.'

Interesting they didn't mention grenades at all for shooting, or at all in any stuff to date.

That should be interesting to see how they'v changed them

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?

Well considering your forbidden from being within 1" of enemies now unless engaged in HTH, this seems like a rule to allow certain weapons to shoot in assault like the example of pistols given. If you had a melta gun within 1" of an enemy and not in assault before then you were cheating or made a mistake.

I wonder if that means pistols won't count as CC weapons for purposes of additional weapons now. If so that means you get to shoot + fight in CC with that bonus attack as well, pretty crazy.