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.

Hopefully 3 and 5 are true, *seems* they are.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
CC has been buffed in this edition based on these five elements that have been confirmed or hinted at by the designers.

1. No longer removing closest models as casualties mean Overwatch less damaging to charges.

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

4. Charging units strike first (barring unforeseen special unit rules).

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

All of these are HUGE for the maligned assault armies of 40K. I just hope the hinted at rules come to fruition.

When you put it like this, things are looking up!

Did I miss something with this? Because 1 and 5 weren't mentioned in any of the articles or on facebook

 warboss wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really hope that absolutely nothing in the game allows an army to influence the flat 6 they need in Overwatch to hit.

Because a grot should overwatch the same as a vindicar assassin, right? I hope the exact opposite. They should have made overwatch a function of your normal ballistic skill with a penalty to overwatch (and repriced units accordingly). Just having it be a flat one size fits the galaxy 6 is just plain lazy rules writing.

The problem is, only some of the right units that should have the ability to bypass that flat 6 would be the ones that get it.

Only 2+4 are confirmed by articals all the others are guess work and wishful thinking at this time.

Skullhammer wrote:
Only 2+4 are confirmed by articals all the others are guess work and wishful thinking at this time.

Then they're making gak up and should be ashamed of themselves. At least with 3 it's a reasonable interpretation of the sentence from the article.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Sisters wear power armour that doesn't add to their physical abilities, only reinforces them, so I'd expect them and their normal human-sized frames to move 5" as well. Now on the flipside, Assassins will likely move 7" (or more) as some of them they are faster than even Astartes.

In the limited sources where they care to elaborate (the novels and the defunct RPG), I could have sworn that SOB armor had some sort of movement benefit. I'll have to check that tonight.

-1 to hit roll for overwatch. Simple.

v0iddrgn wrote:
CC has been buffed in this edition based on these five elements that have been confirmed or hinted at by the designers.

1. No longer removing closest models as casualties mean Overwatch less damaging to charges.

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

4. Charging units strike first (barring unforeseen special unit rules).

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

All of these are HUGE for the maligned assault armies of 40K. I just hope the hinted at rules come to fruition.

And how is 3 a buff for CC armies? So you close in on the enemy, making it easier to shoot you (weapon ranges) or assault you. So failing the charge and having to move just leaves you vulnerable.

 warboss wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really hope that absolutely nothing in the game allows an army to influence the flat 6 they need in Overwatch to hit.

Because a grot should overwatch the same as a vindicar assassin, right? I hope the exact opposite. They should have made overwatch a function of your normal ballistic skill with a penalty to overwatch (and repriced units accordingly). Just having it be a flat one size fits the galaxy 6 is just plain lazy rules writing.

Then we would have to point up everything even more with a higher BS, because their overwatch potential would be so much higher. Stop thinking about fluff and start thinking balance.

 warboss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Sisters wear power armour that doesn't add to their physical abilities, only reinforces them, so I'd expect them and their normal human-sized frames to move 5" as well. Now on the flipside, Assassins will likely move 7" (or more) as some of them they are faster than even Astartes.

In the limited sources where they care to elaborate (the novels and the defunct RPG), I could have sworn that SOB armor had some sort of movement benefit. I'll have to check that tonight.

The only one I can think of from the codex stuff was that it supports its own weight.

ERJAK wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
Only 2+4 are confirmed by articals all the others are guess work and wishful thinking at this time.

Then they're making gak up and should be ashamed of themselves. At least with 3 it's a reasonable interpretation of the sentence from the article.

They were quite clear you need to reach 1", rather than base contact as now. It is wishful thinking by those hanging onto another sentence out of context.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really hope that absolutely nothing in the game allows an army to influence the flat 6 they need in Overwatch to hit.

Because a grot should overwatch the same as a vindicar assassin, right? I hope the exact opposite. They should have made overwatch a function of your normal ballistic skill with a penalty to overwatch (and repriced units accordingly). Just having it be a flat one size fits the galaxy 6 is just plain lazy rules writing.

The problem is, only some of the right units that should have the ability to bypass that flat 6 would be the ones that get it.

Agreed. That's why I've always thought it should be a function of BS instead (in the past two editions) with special rules to differentiate truly capable or incapable overwatching units within the general lists. Something like a -2 to BS so that the standard human IG guardsman for instance gets a 6+ overwatch but an eldar shooty aspect warrior gets a 5+... and orks get diddly as they're two disorganized to overwatch properly (but instead should have gotten something like counterattack to make up for it or have their cost adjusted accordingly). The lazy way it was shoehorned into 7th (and possibly 6th... I don't recall at this point) should not be the template for how its done in 8th IMO.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
-1 to hit roll for overwatch. Simple.

Overwatch are 6 to hit as it is now

Daedalus81 wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really hope that absolutely nothing in the game allows an army to influence the flat 6 they need in Overwatch to hit.

Because a grot should overwatch the same as a vindicar assassin, right? I hope the exact opposite. They should have made overwatch a function of your normal ballistic skill with a penalty to overwatch (and repriced units accordingly). Just having it be a flat one size fits the galaxy 6 is just plain lazy rules writing.

Then we would have to point up everything even more with a higher BS, because their overwatch potential would be so much higher. Stop thinking about fluff and start thinking balance.

The two aren't mutually exclusive unless you're lazily trying to shoehorn in a mechanic into a decade old ruleset without rocking the boat. That shouldn't be the case with this edition unlike the previous two. There is nothing inherently unbalanced with differentiating units in a points based system as long as you actually charge points for benefits (unlike with greedhammer 7th edition's formations mechanic).

 thenewgozoku wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
-1 to hit roll for overwatch. Simple.

Overwatch are 6 to hit as it is now

Sorry, I was saying what I personally think it should be rather than what it is. I should have been clearer there.

 warboss wrote:


The two aren't mutually exclusive unless you're lazily trying to shoehorn in a mechanic into a decade old ruleset without rocking the boat. That shouldn't be the case with this edition unlike the previous two. There is nothing inherently unbalanced with differentiating units in a points based system as long as you actually charge points for benefits (unlike with greedhammer 7th edition's formations mechanic).

Do you want armies that take the biggest guns with the best ballistic skill? Because that's how you get there. Either that or you overcost ranged units as to not be useful without taking overwatch shots.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 warboss wrote:


The two aren't mutually exclusive unless you're lazily trying to shoehorn in a mechanic into a decade old ruleset without rocking the boat. That shouldn't be the case with this edition unlike the previous two. There is nothing inherently unbalanced with differentiating units in a points based system as long as you actually charge points for benefits (unlike with greedhammer 7th edition's formations mechanic).

Do you want armies that take the biggest guns with the best ballistic skill? Because that's how you get there. Either that or you overcost ranged units as to not be useful without taking overwatch shots.

Or you don't remove models from the front rank but leave it instead to the defender like in previous editions for casualties to simulate models moving up to fill the ranks . Or you limit the range of overwatch shots or prevent certain weapons from using it as they're not intended for snap fire. Or you only allow the charged unit to do it barring the occasional rare special rule. When you're desiging a new mechanic, you're not limited to one or two binary choices. It just requires much more effort and a bit of imagination compared with a galaxy wide 6 to hit regardless whether your a millenia old expert alien marksmen with nigh mythical tech or a nearsighted grandma with one eye inducted into the civilian militia during a crisis firing with a rusty iron sight. Invalidating every codex and the entire ruleset and then taking the lazy way out in rules writing isn't the road I'm hoping that GW took.

To those people saying 2D6 charges are stupid:

Consider the following. In AoS there are units (cavalry) with 14" move. We could safely assume there will be units that are as fast in 40k. Let's say charge = move x2. Do you really want units moving 14" and then charging 28"? Didn't think so. What about charge = move+1D6"? That's still a 14" move followed by a 15"-20" charge. At a minimum that's a 29" threat range, meaning these fast units can charge clear into the opponents deployment zone on turn 1.

Trust me, you don't want charges to involve the Movement stat in any way.

Random charge is still a thing? Can't wait for the optimism police to try and spin that one. [MODE EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]



I still don't get where people find their faith in gw being different now. [MODE EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]


They just torched 3000$ worth of rules instead of fixing them they "started fresh"... this is gw guys, fixing one thing and breaking two others is the business model.


The nail in the coffin for me is if fire arcs for vehicles are gone. I really don't want every vehicles shooting to work like a unit in an open topped transport, that's total garbage, if the game has indeed gone that brainless route it's a bridge too far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mymearan wrote:


Trust me, you don't want charges to involve the Movement stat in any way.

Why? What's wrong with movement stat plus 6 or d6? Hell I'd take guaranteed charge based off movement stat alone at this point, that or choice between guranteed move and random charge salad/

Must admit I am so hyped about the new edition, I had to return to Dakka and will start a new space marine chapter.

I don't mind too much a certain amount of AoS'ification

They haven't said anything about how grenades will be implemented yet, right? Maybe grenades can be used by an attacking unit to negate a defending unit's overwatch, and by a defending unit to negate an attacking unit's ability to strike first?

I mean, it's never been my favorite mechanic in the game, but I've never heard this many people whine about 2d6" charges until they were confirmed to be left in.

 Mymearan wrote:
To those people saying 2D6 charges are stupid:

Consider the following. In AoS there are units (cavalry) with 14" move. We could safely assume there will be units that are as fast in 40k. Let's say charge = move x2. Do you really want units moving 14" and then charging 28"? Didn't think so. What about charge = move+1D6"? That's still a 14" move followed by a 15"-20" charge. At a minimum that's a 29" threat range, meaning these fast units can charge clear into the opponents deployment zone on turn 1.

How about charge distance = movement stat? Or even charge distance = movement stat +D3 ? Or charge distance = movement stat - 3" +d6 ? Or any of the other possible combination that makes them less random?

Skullhammer wrote:
Only 2+4 are confirmed by articals all the others are guess work and wishful thinking at this time.

Not specifically.

On A FB post when someone bemoaned how hard it will be to make a charge especially after removing the front models after overwatch their response was something like "We never said anything about where you remove the models from"
The poster then immediately posted back with what sounded like a defensive "That's why I said Theoretical" instead of "Cool" or "Oh, OK we will have to wait and see."

I believe in an earlier article they also hinted or implies that wound allocating is back, which also negates the need for Look Out Sir.

Mot sure about consolidating into combat though.

I am disappointed with the 2d6 charge and the existence of overwatch. They missed an opportunity, but at least it's no worse than how it used to be. In fact, it is measurably better than 7th Ed. (charge within 1"). There are still unknowns as well - whether we can Advance and then Charge, whether you still move after Charge, and whether you may consolidate into further Combats.

 Mymearan wrote:
To those people saying 2D6 charges are stupid:

Consider the following. In AoS there are units (cavalry) with 14" move. We could safely assume there will be units that are as fast in 40k. Let's say charge = move x2. Do you really want units moving 14" and then charging 28"? Didn't think so. What about charge = move+1D6"? That's still a 14" move followed by a 15"-20" charge. At a minimum that's a 29" threat range, meaning these fast units can charge clear into the opponents deployment zone on turn 1.

Trust me, you don't want charges to involve the Movement stat in any way.

Well, unless we combine charges with the movement phase at least. But yes, in 40k the movement stat + charge could be game breaking.

Requizen wrote:
I mean, it's never been my favorite mechanic in the game, but I've never heard this many people whine about 2d6" charges until they were confirmed to be left in.

I've consistently disliked them since their introduction. It's just randomness for randomness's sake. On the flip side, I've never seen anyone in real life praise them ever either.

 Skerr wrote:


I believe in an earlier article they also hinted or implies that wound allocating is back, which also negates the need for Look Out Sir.

I am crossing my fingers that characters can't join units like in AoS. Instead, I hope they can just Look Out Sir wounds to nearby units - functionally equivalent to joining the unit, except they can still be targeted and you can try to put wounds on them through the LOS.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
They haven't said anything about how grenades will be implemented yet, right? Maybe grenades can be used by an attacking unit to negate a defending unit's overwatch, and by a defending unit to negate an attacking unit's ability to strike first?

We can bet on them being used as shooting and assault attack options, but no idea for other rules. I mean no initiative means it won't affect charging the way it used to.

 Mymearan wrote:
To those people saying 2D6 charges are stupid:

Consider the following. In AoS there are units (cavalry) with 14" move. We could safely assume there will be units that are as fast in 40k. Let's say charge = move x2. Do you really want units moving 14" and then charging 28"? Didn't think so. What about charge = move+1D6"? That's still a 14" move followed by a 15"-20" charge. At a minimum that's a 29" threat range, meaning these fast units can charge clear into the opponents deployment zone on turn 1.

Trust me, you don't want charges to involve the Movement stat in any way.

I agree full on running up the field may not be the same as charging a foe. At face value it seems the same but in the back and forth of semi-real and abstract the guy in the lead of a charge might slip in mud or trip over a branch bringing the whole group to a grinding halt after 2 inches.

For the movement plus d6 camp, it does not sound so bad though no more rolling a 2 inch if that was the case. For termies, you would be looking at 5+d6 plus the 1 inch within for an auto 7 inch threat range on charging. Not sure I am against that though rolling 2d6 is not a shoe in as we all have experienced.