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.

 kestral wrote:
A space marine devastator squad has a 2+ save in cover, can move 6" (possibly more than orks and ordinary humans, though we don't know that) and still shoot at a 25% reduction in effect, can fall back from combat on their turn, and still shoot (sort of) overwatch, may not be slowed by the cover they are hiding in. Good times, good times.

An Ork Loota has a 5+ ARMOR save in cover, hits on a 6+ when moving (50% reduction in effect). They may benefit somewhat from battleshock moral rules, though we don't know for sure.

All can be balanced with careful design, of course. I'll keep an open mind.

As was said remember points (assuming things stay as they are now) a squad of 6 devastators is ~ equal to the cost of 10 Lootas. Most devastator weapons are 1 shot each vs Lootas having more shots. It also depends on they type of cover. Marines in a ruin (if say that is +2 to save) still only get a 2+, Lootas then get a 4+. Also if there are multiple to hit modifiers Lootas care less if they get -3 to hit it is still only a 50% reduction whereas marines hit on a 6+, a 75% reduction.

As you said we don't know the rules, but it is hardly clear cut even with what we know.

Consolidate into combat is very hard to balance. Also if you have consolidate into combat then fall back mechanism is kinda lame.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Then we're circling back to point costs.

If overwatch is considered part of the cost of the gun then:

A big shoota will be pointed very low (comparatively). A heavy bolter will need to be more points on guardsmen and even more on marines. So now marines have heavy bolters that cost too many points if they don't use them in overwatch and orks don't give one damn about any of it and field more big shootas as a result.

Points costs have always been a part of the discussion (at least for me) so we're not circling back to anything IMO. Only idiots would completely ignore points costs in a wargame this complex (see AOS rollout and 7th ed 40k army building efforts by the GW design team). I have no problem with what you wrote and I'd add that quality over quantity with the same weapon at different levels of effectiveness should IMO be a thing in 40k like in your example. Marines should be using their weapons in overwatch because they're a highly trained, adaptable, and disciplined with good quality and maintained equipment unlike orks... that should factor into both their rules and their cost. The only correction I'd make is that overwatch in your example is a part of the cost of both he weapon AND the model since it uses the model's statline to fire which is it's primary purpose.

I wish the charging mechanic was at least "Movement stat OR 2D6", so at least if you were your movement speed away you can guarantee getting in.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Was it ever answered if Flamers still hit automatically in Overwatch?

I fail to see how they wouldn't since they always hit automatically now wthout needing a template.

so another straight buff to Flamer weapons? Sweet. BA Tactical Squads FTW. Furioso Dreadnoughts are going to be killer if Frag Cannons stay as a Flamer type weapon.

"No change to template weapons during Overwatch" is hardly a buff, it's what we already have.

 Rippy wrote:
I wish the charging mechanic was at least "Movement stat OR 2D6", so at least if you were your movement speed away you can guarantee getting in.

I would not be against that.

I am really wondering how bikes and jump pack units are going to work in the charge phase.

 thenewgozoku wrote:
Consolidate into combat is very hard to balance. Also if you have consolidate into combat then fall back mechanism is kinda lame.

Not really, if you can overwatch the consolidation, and then fall back on your turn I think it works just fine, so long as you only consolidate on your turn, or if it is D6, then falling out of assault is a bit more difficult. If you are a low movement unit, you fall back and maybe you get caught.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

Really? Outside of army creation silliness, 2D6 charges are one of the more common complaints about the current system.


Disappointed that they haven't changed this for 8th... and it's another mark against the 'giving players what they have been asking for' claim.

I haven't been asking for either thing, but I prefer it not to be fixed move charges. I don't think the community has a verifiable census. As near as I can tell there are at least 3-4 competing ideas.

EDIT : removed tone

 Rippy wrote:
I wish the charging mechanic was at least "Movement stat OR 2D6", so at least if you were your movement speed away you can guarantee getting in.

I would have preferred Move +d6 for charges.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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.

Really? Outside of army creation silliness, 2D6 charges are one of the more common complaints about the current system.


Disappointed that they haven't changed this for 8th... and it's another mark against the 'giving players what they have been asking for' claim.

I haven't been asking for either thing, but I prefer it not to be fixed move charges. Perhaps parts of the community should stop claiming that they speak for the whole community until we have a verifiable consensus? As near as I can tell there are at least 3-4 competing ideas.

Yeah I gotta say, in my totally anecdotal and in no way exhaustive experience; no one cares about 2d6 charges at all until someone builds them up a bandwagon to ride on.

And I personally, not speaking for everyone, have NO idea how 2d6 charges could have possibly made it into the top 100 list of stupid bullgak things that suck in 7th.

Fragile wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I wish the charging mechanic was at least "Movement stat OR 2D6", so at least if you were your movement speed away you can guarantee getting in.

I would have preferred Move +d6 for charges.

I think this would have made certain units suffer pretty badly to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks for staying on topic dudes! Keep it clean, and take speculation to General Discussion!

Daedalus81 wrote:

I haven't been asking for either thing, but I prefer it not to be fixed move charges. Perhaps parts of the community should stop claiming that they speak for the whole community until we have a verifiable consensus? As near as I can tell there are at least 3-4 competing ideas.

Nobody has claimed to speak for the whole community, so far as I've seen.

I don't have a problem with charges being random, just with them being so random. The massive potential range difference due to the 2d6 roll makes planning charges next to impossible. It effectively means that for critical charges you need to ensure you're 2" away before you declare the charge.

In a system where units generally more 6-12", having charges as 6+D6“, or even 3+D6", would have made more sense.

I just hope shooting casualties from the front is removed. Hiding characters in the back of units and losing movement from front casualties coming off sucks. Made me sell my orks and play other armies.

Breng77 wrote:

 kestral wrote:
A space marine devastator squad has a 2+ save in cover, can move 6" (possibly more than orks and ordinary humans, though we don't know that) and still shoot at a 25% reduction in effect, can fall back from combat on their turn, and still shoot (sort of) overwatch, may not be slowed by the cover they are hiding in. Good times, good times.

An Ork Loota has a 5+ ARMOR save in cover, hits on a 6+ when moving (50% reduction in effect). They may benefit somewhat from battleshock moral rules, though we don't know for sure.

All can be balanced with careful design, of course. I'll keep an open mind.

As was said remember points (assuming things stay as they are now) a squad of 6 devastators is ~ equal to the cost of 10 Lootas. Most devastator weapons are 1 shot each vs Lootas having more shots. It also depends on they type of cover. Marines in a ruin (if say that is +2 to save) still only get a 2+, Lootas then get a 4+. Also if there are multiple to hit modifiers Lootas care less if they get -3 to hit it is still only a 50% reduction whereas marines hit on a 6+, a 75% reduction.

As you said we don't know the rules, but it is hardly clear cut even with what we know.

From what we have seen so far I think we can dismiss lootas unless deffguns get a huge buff or they will be dirt cheap. 10 lootas firing at 6 devastators will kill 1 marine while 6 devastators will kill about half the lootas. Its not even comparable.
With vehicles getting a save deffguns will be pretty useless agianst them too.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 kestral wrote:
A space marine devastator squad has a 2+ save in cover, can move 6" (possibly more than orks and ordinary humans, though we don't know that) and still shoot at a 25% reduction in effect, can fall back from combat on their turn, and still shoot (sort of) overwatch, may not be slowed by the cover they are hiding in. Good times, good times.

An Ork Loota has a 5+ ARMOR save in cover, hits on a 6+ when moving (50% reduction in effect). They may benefit somewhat from battleshock moral rules, though we don't know for sure.

All can be balanced with careful design, of course. I'll keep an open mind.

As was said remember points (assuming things stay as they are now) a squad of 6 devastators is ~ equal to the cost of 10 Lootas. Most devastator weapons are 1 shot each vs Lootas having more shots. It also depends on they type of cover. Marines in a ruin (if say that is +2 to save) still only get a 2+, Lootas then get a 4+. Also if there are multiple to hit modifiers Lootas care less if they get -3 to hit it is still only a 50% reduction whereas marines hit on a 6+, a 75% reduction.

As you said we don't know the rules, but it is hardly clear cut even with what we know.

From what we have seen so far I think we can dismiss lootas unless deffguns get a huge buff or they will be dirt cheap. 10 lootas firing at 6 devastators will kill 1 marine while 6 devastators will kill about half the lootas. Its not even comparable.
With vehicles getting a save deffguns will be pretty useless agianst them too.

Except Lootas shoot 477D20s at 172" range and ignore line of sight.

I'm making things up for units no one's scene yet and so are you.

I can't tell if my favorite part of 8th edition is the awesome rules we keep getting sneak peaks of, or the sheer number of people in this thread speaking authoritatively on a ruleset they know only snippets of information about...

the_scotsman wrote:
-Unless some unforseen rule appears, Vehicles are much, much, much harder to kill in assault, and now get to Overwatch. Oh joy, one of the few edge cases where an assault unit was more effective than a shooting unit is gone, because we no longer hit vehicles in the rear and now they have basic saves vs assaults. Even if it got only T6 and a 4+ save, a unit of ork boyz that would previously be able to glance out a Rhino is now not going to have a prayer.

Lets assume that you have a squad of 30 boys with 3 rokkits and a nob with a PK. Your boys have a slugga and a extra choppa.
When you are moving in, your sluggas will take ~.8 wounds off the rhino. Your rokkits will take another ~.7 wounds.
Your boys will swing 84 times doing another ~4.6 wounds to the rhino.
Your PK nob will do another ~2.22 wounds to the rhino

That's 8.32 wounds done to the rhino, which is all likelyhood will be a cracked tin can.
Without having to worry about template weapons, putting 30 boys base to base in a movement tray is not a crazy idea. It greatly increases the chances of every boy being able to shoot their guns.

Note : There are a lot of assumptions in these numbers. They guess you still get the +1 attack on the charge. That you get -3 AP with a PK. That you get -2 AP with a rokkit. The STR and rokkits and PKs remain constant. The fact is we won't have real solid numbers until the edition is released, but from first glance, I think boys not be horribad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
I would have preferred Move +d6 for charges.

Play Khorne daemons. Bloodletters get a banner that gives them that.

 CoreCommander wrote:

Personally, nowadays I dislike random charge lengths. I can see some of the reasons it was introduced in WFB, but it was a fix for a stagnant game. Why it carried over to AoS and new 40k when they could've mitigated the issue by introducing a new ruleset is beyond me. Warhammer in general is a game of inches right? Then why bother differentiating the unit's moves by only an inch or two when you're throwing a pretty sizeable 2d6 charge range? The difference in movement is lost in the charge range.

Random Charge distance was pretty much necessary when pre-measuring was allowed. With fixed charge distances it is way too easy to simply maintain distance of 6.1 inches and never get caught. Of course you still can do it to with 2d6 Charge distance, by staying 12.1" away, but that also puts you out of optimal range of many Infantry weapons, so risk/reward for such is dubious.
In 5th edition, many of the charges were through Difficult terrain, which was random too (except shorter than now), somehow that did not incite complaints?

I find the requirement to get within 1" slightly puzzling. Now charge distance is measured from base to base, now it's base to base-1 inch. Feels kinda weird, but I presume it is because of AoS style close combat?

 warboss wrote:

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.

Random charges increase the complexity of the decisions a player has to make regarding movement and board control.

Considering that many anti-infantry weapons are optimal < 12" (rapid fire weapons, flamers, etc.), a player with a shooty unit has a decision to make: do you go danger close to gain the full effect of your weapons, or do you stay outside in safety? Charge ranges complicate this decision because they change the risk associated with moving:

Charges being double the movement value make a static danger zone around a unit - enter the zone, will be charged.
Charges being 2D6 create a variable danger zone - the deeper into the zone, the greater the likelihood of being charged.

Because of the way the probability works on 2D6, you generate a curve about an average of 7, making the chance of moving at least 7" greater than 6" or less. This way, being within 11" of a CC unit is safer than being within 10", and so on.

The probability for M+D6 is actually flat: you have as much chance of moving a marine 7" as you do 12", which I would argue is randomness for randomness' sake more than anything.

 Crablezworth wrote:
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/

Lol what? You can get warnings for being impolite just for being negative to a general audience and asking rhetorical questions now?

On the topic of charging, was going 6" really so bad? It required experience when you couldnt pre-measure, but even if you could, would it really matter any more

I think it's time to take discussion of whether you like random charge distances to a new thread.

I was excited about the return of the Move mechanic, but the Move+D6" to run, and the absurd 2D6" charge is really almost enough to put me off even considering the new edition. Sad to see that stuff hang around.

strepp wrote:


Random charges increase the complexity of the decisions a player has to make regarding movement and board control.

Considering that many anti-infantry weapons are optimal < 12" (rapid fire weapons, flamers, etc.), a player with a shooty unit has a decision to make: do you go danger close to gain the full effect of your weapons, or do you stay outside in safety? Charge ranges complicate this decision because they change the risk associated with moving:

Charges being double the movement value make a static danger zone around a unit - enter the zone, will be charged.
Charges being 2D6 create a variable danger zone - the deeper into the zone, the greater the likelihood of being charged.

Because of the way the probability works on 2D6, you generate a curve about an average of 7, making the chance of moving at least 7" greater than 6" or less. This way, being within 11" of a CC unit is safer than being within 10", and so on.

The probability for M+D6 is actually flat: you have as much chance of moving a marine 7" as you do 12", which I would argue is randomness for randomness' sake more than anything.

You and I are getting married.

So a bit of speculation that I assume other people have came to with that the ap's are going to translate to the following based on weapon profiles we've been given.

4=-1
3=-2
2=-3
1=-4
D=-4

If correct that means heavy bolters and heavy flamers will be -1 to enemy saves. That kinda makes me excited because it makes them more of a "all-rounder " anti infantry weapons.

So much depends on bespoke rules and stuff we don't yet know.

Also randomness detracts from the need to balance precisely. If things behave wonky and random even the best stufff can fail and in a gmae with this many dice rolls it will eventually. Not an excuse for the balancing job GW has done but still.

Your assuming all weapons will not be re-balanced relative to others. Who says they even want a -4 anymore?

Earth127 wrote:
So much depends on bespoke rules and stuff we don't yet know.

Also randomness detracts from the need to balance precisely. If things behave wonky and random even the best stufff can fail and in a gmae with this many dice rolls it will eventually. Not an excuse for the balancing job GW has done but still.

Alot of the rules in AoS are not random wonky stuff. It's stuff like "If you have key word A, they get +1 to Stat B".

Or, if your banner bearer is alive you get +1 to charge distance.

They are all very simple bonuses. Depth comes from intentional combos and knowing when to use what bonuses when.

 Lockark wrote:
So a bit of speculation that I assume other people have came to with that the ap's are going to translate to the following based on weapon profiles we've been given.

4=-1
3=-2
2=-3
1=-4
D=-4

If correct that means heavy bolters and heavy flamers will be -1 to enemy saves. That kinda makes me excited because it makes them more of a "all-rounder " anti infantry weapons.

I think this will be pretty close, although any weapons that used to be D will probably get a strength value and do D3 or D6 Mortal Wounds instead (so not need for AP at all).
I really like the new AP system as it opens up so many possibilities.

Take Shuriken weapons for example. Currently they are all AP5 and have Bladestorm. In 8th these could just have AP -1 and be just as fluffy without having to separate out your 6s.
I'm really interested to see how weapons that had Gauss or Haywire translate into this AV-less system.

-

 Vryce 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.

Um... 1 of these items have actually been confirmed. I don't know where you got the rest of that list from, but they most certainly have -not- been confirmed.

He also said hinted at.

 Skerr wrote:

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

Why is everyone seeing this as a BONUS for the assaulting unit. If anything it gets you in closer for more of the enemy guns to kill you?
You need to draw the enemy closer to you, not allow him to stay in his comfort zone supported by his friends.

-