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.

Overall these changes in Shooting support high skilled units more so than low skill units

A BS3 unit being forced to Snap Fire means he lost -2 BS
A B55 unit being forced to Snap Fire means he lost -4 BS

New rule is just a blank -1 BS, so the Elite Gun will still be an Elite Gun.

Same applies for Cover, being in Awesome Armor and behind cover will afford you better survivability than being in a Speedo and behind Cover. While before the 2 would be equal.

It also does give reasons for people with good armor to use cover more often.

 Traditio wrote:
You are mistaken. The way that they are treating cover is just a direct port from Age of Sigmar, where cover simply provides a +1 boost to all saves.

The lascannon would reduce power armor to a 6+ save. Cover would then provide at least a +1, which would bump it up to at least a 5+ armor save.

Yeah, that's why I said, "Oops, I read that wrong."

 Talamare wrote:
Overall these changes in Shooting support high skilled units more so than low skill units

And they should cost more to reflect it? We can hope, anyways.

 Talamare wrote:
Overall these changes in Shooting support high skilled units more so than low skill units

A BS3 unit being forced to Snap Fire means he lost -2 BS
A B55 unit being forced to Snap Fire means he lost -4 BS

New rule is just a blank -1 BS, so the Elite Gun will still be an Elite Gun.

Same applies for Cover, being in Awesome Armor and behind cover will afford you better survivability than being in a Speedo and behind Cover. While before the 2 would be equal.

It also does give reasons for people with good armor to use cover more often.

My tactical marines and devastators with heavy weapons are never going to come out of hiding. I am going to roll 2+ armor saves and fire pot shots all day long.

 DalinCriid wrote:
Welcome to the age of plasma pistol.

Splinter Pistol*

it's also worth noting that weapons that where previously heavy may not remain. for example assault cannons could receive an assault classification instead of a heavy.

Is the one inch rule a unit or model thing?
Somehow I don't see it being a unit thing due to mixed weaponry, still, a small squad like the current Deathwatch Veterans with the basic Chainsword+Boltgun combinations will possibly be chump blocked by larger, cheaper units like Gretchin/Runtherd just by standing in the way.

It was previously against the rules altogether to have a unit within 1'' of an enemy unit without being in combat with it. So in that sense things haven't really changed much. Saying that pistols can shoot at units within 1'' is really just a fancy way of saying that pistols can fire while in combats.

This cover change is the first red flag to me. 2+ armour marines is hardly going to be fun unless rends are far more common and significant than the profiles shown thus far.

Trying to encourage the use of the Gunslinger ability at a guess.

Tyel wrote:
This cover change is the first red flag to me. 2+ armour marines is hardly going to be fun unless rends are far more common and significant than the profiles shown thus far.

It'll be fun for me!

In all seriousness, though:

Power armored marines are much too vulnerable right now. They're not supposed to die left and right.

Tyel wrote:
This cover change is the first red flag to me. 2+ armour marines is hardly going to be fun unless rends are far more common and significant than the profiles shown thus far.

You mean more common then the literal like, two weapons profiles we've seen?

Having more than 2 rend weapons in the entire game is a pretty safe bet, my friend.

Some of the new rules and profiles scare me but to an extent the shooting phase examples felt good. My only issue is falling back from a melee. Normally even when you lost combat there was a chance when failing morale to get your whole unit swept and killed instantly. I want more details on falling back from combat because it should be a risky maneuver that might get your troops killed and/or falling back and in need of re-group. Otherwise i'm mostly ok with the shooting and cover (cover system is more like 7th and 8th fantasy honestly).

So far i'm split on this new edition. It half makes me wanna crap myself and leave and the other half feel like maybe things will be ok. This is an example of #2 (and not the crap myself one ;P).

All that said considering how weapons are my poisoned attacks may become much worse. I'm not entirely sure. Would they kill vehicles better (a move that kinda makes no sense)? How will haywire work now and will it even exist since some weapons clearly have it? Giving units with armor and cover more options just makes power armored units more powerful esp. if bike units can jink or have cover somehow. I mean if i hit an enemy with poisoned instead of taking the same 3+ i have to go through armor and cover and most have so much that poison will just suck in shooting. Perhaps they'll explain more on this later.

I might have missed it, but did they tell us how targeting is going to work? Because I sincerely hope that the old way of everyone in a unit making all of their attacks against one unit goes the way of the dodo. It would make new combos possible. Go ahead and put heavy bolters on your Vanquisher! They can just shoot the infantry surrounding the tank your cannon is aiming for.

Reavas wrote:

 DalinCriid wrote:
Welcome to the age of plasma pistol.

Splinter Pistol*

Blast Pistol.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Some of the new rules and profiles scare me but to an extent the shooting phase examples felt good. My only issue is falling back from a melee. Normally even when you lost combat there was a chance when failing morale to get your whole unit swept and killed instantly. I want more details on falling back from combat because it should be a risky maneuver that might get your troops killed and/or falling back and in need of re-group. Otherwise i'm mostly ok with the shooting and cover (cover system is more like 7th and 8th fantasy honestly).

So far i'm split on this new edition. It half makes me wanna crap myself and leave and the other half feel like maybe things will be ok. This is an example of #2 (and not the crap myself one ;P).

All that said considering how weapons are my poisoned attacks may become much worse. I'm not entirely sure. Would they kill vehicles better (a move that kinda makes no sense)? How will haywire work now and will it even exist since some weapons clearly have it? Giving units with armor and cover more options just makes power armored units more powerful esp. if bike units can jink or have cover somehow. I mean if i hit an enemy with poisoned instead of taking the same 3+ i have to go through armor and cover and most have so much that poison will just suck in shooting. Perhaps they'll explain more on this later.

For poisoned it would probably be some thing similar to how it is now. Instead of a strength vs toughness roll the to wound roll is fixed and would likely (assuming they will be using keywords like in AoS) say that the rule has no effect on units with the vehicle keyword.
For Haywire maybe each wound does D3 damage instead of 1 if the target is a vehicle.

 Traditio wrote:


My tactical marines and devastators with heavy weapons are never going to come out of hiding. I am going to roll 2+ armor saves and fire pot shots all day long.

I think that's the goal, make people use cover rather than standing out in the open. It has all sorts of interesting effects on tactics, like making assault units one of the best ways to dislodge entrenched enemies, and changing the board control currency from firelane to cover. Oddly enough the low armor people will be the least likely to take cover since it doesn't do as much good for them, going from a 5+ to a 4+is a 50% increase in survivability, going from a 3+ to a 2+ is literally doubling your chance of making a save. That seems like a perverse incentive, The better your armor the better cover is. Which is why I was shocked when they said it would add to armor save rather than being a negative modifier to hit (which would mean being in cover is equally good for everyone). It just seems like a bad math decision, which the reveals have been avoiding up to this point.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Traditio wrote:


My tactical marines and devastators with heavy weapons are never going to come out of hiding. I am going to roll 2+ armor saves and fire pot shots all day long.

I think that's the goal, make people use cover rather than standing out in the open. It has all sorts of interesting effects on tactics, like making assault units one of the best ways to dislodge entrenched enemies, and changing the board control currency from firelane to cover. Oddly enough the low armor people will be the least likely to take cover since it doesn't do as much good for them, going from a 5+ to a 4+is a 50% increase in survivability, going from a 3+ to a 2+ is literally doubling your chance of making a save. That seems like a perverse incentive, The better your armor the better cover is. Which is why I was shocked when they said it would add to armor save rather than being a negative modifier to hit (which would mean being in cover is equally good for everyone). It just seems like a bad math decision, which the reveals have been avoiding up to this point.

Why were you shocked?

That's how it already works in Age of Sigmar.

I know, and it's a bad idea there as well despite the majority save being a 4+. In a galaxy of MEQ it's an even worse mechanic because nothing should double a unit's survivability because that starts to feel required as opposed to tactical. in a year (if not a much shorter time period) people will be saying this is their least favorite aspect of the game, I'll bet real money on it.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Traditio wrote:


My tactical marines and devastators with heavy weapons are never going to come out of hiding. I am going to roll 2+ armor saves and fire pot shots all day long.

I think that's the goal, make people use cover rather than standing out in the open. It has all sorts of interesting effects on tactics, like making assault units one of the best ways to dislodge entrenched enemies, and changing the board control currency from firelane to cover. Oddly enough the low armor people will be the least likely to take cover since it doesn't do as much good for them, going from a 5+ to a 4+is a 50% increase in survivability, going from a 3+ to a 2+ is literally doubling your chance of making a save. That seems like a perverse incentive, The better your armor the better cover is. Which is why I was shocked when they said it would add to armor save rather than being a negative modifier to hit (which would mean being in cover is equally good for everyone). It just seems like a bad math decision, which the reveals have been avoiding up to this point.

5 wounds with 2+ = 30 EHP
5 wounds with 3+ = 15 EHP
5 wounds with 4+ = 10 EHP
5 wounds with 5+ = 7.5 EHP
5 wounds with 6+ = 6 EHP

What does EHP mean?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimgold wrote:
I know, and it's a bad idea there as well despite the majority save being a 4+. In a galaxy of MEQ it's an even worse mechanic because nothing should double a unit's survivability because that starts to feel required as opposed to tactical. in a year (if not a much shorter time period) people will be saying this is their least favorite aspect of the game, I'll bet real money on it.

I think it's going to be a trade-off.

If you're sitting in cover, then you're not moving to objectives.

It's also going to add an additional strategic level to placing objectives. "Do I place this mid field objective in cover so that I have a better armor save when I take it, or do I put it outside of cover to lure my opponent to try to take it...and thereby make it easier for me to remove his models?"

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also wish to note that making cover work this way also has the potential to make melee units more appealing.

Effective hit points, I first encountered it in wow, it means how many hit points it takes to down you after mitigation. Replace hit points with wounds and you get the idea. If only 1 in 6 wounds gets through and you have 5 wounds you end up with 30 wounds effectively because each of your wounds takes six to take.

*Edit* this is assuming the rule of one applies, eg ones are always failures. If not, well let's not go there cause that's a silly land best left alone.

Grimgold:

Unrelated:

How do you feel about all armies essentially gaining gauss?

Not too bad actually, as much as everyone complained about it when we had it will be fun to see them limping now that the shoe is on the other foot. Besides we are secretly GW's favored children, so I imagine we will get gauss like in SWA which is a huge upgrade for us.

 Traditio wrote:
Grimgold:

Unrelated:

How do you feel about all armies essentially gaining gauss?

Remember that lasguns can wound Riptides. How much does that actually help you?

Gauss is only truly dangerous to vehicles with significant armor. Ie, vehicles no one uses anymore. Gauss my rhinos all you want.

Martel732 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Grimgold:

Unrelated:

How do you feel about all armies essentially gaining gauss?

Remember that lasguns can wound Riptides. How much does that actually help you?

Gauss is only truly dangerous to vehicles with significant armor. Ie, vehicles no one uses anymore. Gauss my rhinos all you want.

Once my rhinos have 6-9 wounds each and either 3+ or 4+ armor saves, I am hoping that people try to kill them with lasguns.

Martel732 wrote:
I'll -1 to hit over snap shooting any day of the week. Sounds like tanks get hit, but if they fire ALL at -1, that's better than 1 at full BS and others snap shoot.

That depends on the tank. For example Tau Hammerheads only have one gun, so that is a straight up nerf for an already bad unit. There are also Vindicators, Thunderers, and probably more.

Though they could have a relentless equivalent, but I doubt all vehicles will get it if any of them do, as GW explicitly said that the -1 to hit will apply to vehicles.

I'm still bitter that cover adds to armour saves rather than being a modifier on To-Hit rolls.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'm still bitter that cover adds to armour saves rather than being a modifier on To-Hit rolls.

Well, if it's any consolation:

There are going to be BS modifiers (e.g., smoke launchers).

My guess is that cover mechanics that represent hiding behind obstacles will modify armor, but things that are supposed to represent smoke, invisibility, stealth, etc that reflect being hard to see, will modify To Hit.