40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**insaniak**

ERJAK wrote:

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.

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.

Backfire wrote:
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.

And that would make sense if a similar random mechanic had been implemented for shooting as well. But as it is, pre-measuring allows shooty units to know exactly where they need to be in order to get their weapons in range... but for some reason assault units have to just move as close as possible and hope for the best.

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?

Uh, yes it did... It wasn't as big a complaint, certainly, but many players did dislike the random movement through terrain and would have preferred half movement or some other consistent mechanic instead.

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?

It does at least remove the difficulty of getting into combat with models that overhang their bases.

**KommissarKiln**

Galef wrote:
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.

-

It's good for more sluggish assault armies. Orks come to mind. Otherwise, if you are walking 5" and the enemy, say Marines or Eldar, can go 6 or 7", failing a charge means you can't even close the gap, as they'll simply move away for a net increase in distance of an inch or two per turn. You'll never make it into CC like that. If you fail the charge but get super close, you're all but assured to make it into CC the next turn as long as the unit survives whatever return fire there may be.

**GH05T**

Opinions on flamers in Kill Team? (...assuming it translates well enough on release if they don't provide some kind of update.) The assault d6 seems brutal against 1W Kill Team 'units'.

I ask because I eventually want to build up to an IW CA list that has every CSM with some kind of special (mostly ranged) weapon. Assuming the quote (think it was an official quote) of all current battle-forged lists will stay battle forged, I don't need to change that plan.

**H.B.M.C.**

"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

**Lockark**

Galef wrote:
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.

-

I think shuriken weapons would follow the pattern the bolt weapons are. Pistol and rifle being no ap, well the heavy weapon version gets -1.

I'm also assuming the heavy stubber will be ap0 also. Like. If a bolt gun is ap0 their isn't any fluff justification for shuriken rifle to be -1

It's seeing how haywire translate will be interesting. The Arc pistol for skitarii might of got a huge buff since you can shoot it in cc agiest walkers and MC's. But it's seeing how they Handel haywire before I get excited.

**Rippy**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

I actually do think this, as those with higher movement can get in much closer than those with slower movement, and then charge. Those with higher movement are still in better shape for the Charge Phase.

Oh no, I bet my DG can only move 5"

**Vryce**

Skerr wrote:
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.

Actually, let me retract that - 2 & 4 have been confirmed. None of the rest have been confirmed, but I can see that maybe #1 was hinted at in the facebook post when Warhammer 40000 responded to that statement and said 'Who says you still have to remove models from the front'. That could still very well be the case. 3 is simply a fever dream by people who take an article on rules to be the exact wording on how charging is actually going to work, and doesn't include the full information. And there has been no information on the Fight phase at all, let alone consolidation, so 5 is pure speculation.

**JohnnyHell**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

Unless a unit's 'bespoke' rules add to Charge range. Which is possible. Something is bound to have that, right?

**casvalremdeikun**

JohnnyHell wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

Unless a unit's 'bespoke' rules add to Charge range. Which is possible. Something is bound to have that, right?

I fully expect things like Jump and Bike units charging further and Skitarii to get Dunestrider (+3" to Charge and Advance moves or some such). That or Bikes and Jump Pack will just be flat out faster than their ground variants. Like movement stats of 10" or higher.

**Genestealer Jesse**

gungo 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.

This might be a bad example because a grot uses a blunderbuss which is basically a shotgun and a vindicate uses a sniper rifle. So yes the shotgun should actually be much better in short range than the sniper rifle have you ever played call of duty?

I came out of internet retirement because of this posting. Like COD or WH40K have anything to do with real combat.... Thanks for making me blow gin and tonic out of my nose. Having read most of this thread I'll just say that no rifleman is going to over watch with a backup sidearm. That sidearm is there for when your primary weapon fails, which makes the new pistol/close range rule seem very strange.

On that note I saw the genestealer codex online one day and said.. "I'm getting back into 40K." I bought that, a Tyranid codex and about $150.00 worth of models. Two weeks later GW releases the new rules. At least they are giving me my codex money back, GW has come light years from where they used to be.

-J

**Kalamadea**

insaniak wrote:

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.

Is casualties from the front confirmed? I've been really REALLY REALLY hoping for an AoS or 3rd/4th ed style casualty removal, but haven't seen it specifically mentioned.

**kestral**

One thing I like is that Shadowars and 8th are coming out close together. One is quite detailed and could easily serve as a springboard for more "tactical games". If GW was smart they'd produce a tactician game alongside a beer and pretzels game, and that is kind of what they are doing.

That said, the heavy = -1 to hit when moving bugs me, because it makes a heavy bolter marine superior to a bolter marine in EVERY way. Even when moving heavy guy is better. Obviously you can balance that with points, but why don't chapter masters snag some heavy bolters from the guard and run nothing else?

**Rippy**

Kalamadea wrote:
insaniak wrote:

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.

Is casualties from the front confirmed? I've been really REALLY REALLY hoping for an AoS or 3rd/4th ed style casualty removal, but haven't seen it specifically mentioned.

I don't think we have any confirmations about how to choose casualties from shooting yet.

**insaniak**

Kalamadea wrote:

Is casualties from the front confirmed? I've been really REALLY REALLY hoping for an AoS or 3rd/4th ed style casualty removal, but haven't seen it specifically mentioned.

We haven't had any word on how casualty removal works yet. My post was referring to 6/7th edition rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kestral wrote:
One thing I like is that Shadowars and 8th are coming out close together. One is quite detailed and could easily serve as a springboard for more "tactical games". If GW was smart they'd produce a tactician game alongside a beer and pretzels game, and that is kind of what they are doing.

It would have been a cleverer move if Shadow Wars used a variant of the 8th ed rules, rather than rehashed Necromunda rules. As it is, Shadow Wars' use as a springboard is somewhat dampened by the need for players to learn a completely new system if they want to migrate from it to 40K.

That's assuming that Shadow Wars even sticks around, which I don't believe has been confirmed yet.

**Zethnar**

Genestealer Jesse wrote:

I came out of internet retirement because of this posting. Like COD or WH40K have anything to do with real combat.... Thanks for making me blow gin and tonic out of my nose. Having read most of this thread I'll just say that no rifleman is going to over watch with a backup sidearm. That sidearm is there for when your primary weapon fails, which makes the new pistol/close range rule seem very strange.

That rule exists purely because there are all those paintings of Space Marines shooting aliens in the face whilst holding their chainswords up in the air behind them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

kestral wrote:
One thing I like is that Shadowars and 8th are coming out close together. One is quite detailed and could easily serve as a springboard for more "tactical games". If GW was smart they'd produce a tactician game alongside a beer and pretzels game, and that is kind of what they are doing.

It would have been a cleverer move if Shadow Wars used a variant of the 8th ed rules, rather than rehashed Necromunda rules. As it is, Shadow Wars' use as a springboard is somewhat dampened by the need for players to learn a completely new system if they want to migrate from it to 40K.

That's assuming that Shadow Wars even sticks around, which I don't believe has been confirmed yet.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Shadow Wars was a stop-gap release to keep people buying troop kits whilst waiting for the 8th edition rules to drop.

It's a shame too, if they'd fleshed out the factions with a few more options (some factions are REALLY lacking) and beefed up the campaign system (or at least not dumbed it down so much) it could really have been a worthy successor to Necromunda. As it is I think it will be largely forgotten about by the release of 8th edition (while the same community that has kept Necromunda alive continue to play that instead of Shadow War).

**macluvin**

I hope close combat is a little bit simplified. The static to hit is a little bit of a step in the right direction but the whole 1 inch away thing kind of bugs me. Me and my friend house ruled that everyone in the units in combat gets to make their attacks to make it faster and simpler. I was hoping that they would move along those lines. Guess I'll have to find out tomorrow!

**Luke_Prowler**

Hope we do get surfing assaults. Only way it's going to make up the continued jackboot to the human face that is the shooting/assault divide

**Rippy**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
Hope we do get surfing assaults. Only way it's going to make up the continued jackboot to the human face that is the shooting/assault divide

Do you mean consolidating from one assault in to the next?

**JoeyFox**

Vryce wrote:
Skerr wrote:
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.

Actually, let me retract that - 2 & 4 have been confirmed. None of the rest have been confirmed, but I can see that maybe #1 was hinted at in the facebook post when Warhammer 40000 responded to that statement and said 'Who says you still have to remove models from the front'. That could still very well be the case. 3 is simply a fever dream by people who take an article on rules to be the exact wording on how charging is actually going to work, and doesn't include the full information. And there has been no information on the Fight phase at all, let alone consolidation, so 5 is pure speculation.

Seems to imply that there will be something with regards to movement of models and failed assaults. If not, what else could it be?

**casvalremdeikun**

Rippy wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
Hope we do get surfing assaults. Only way it's going to make up the continued jackboot to the human face that is the shooting/assault divide

Do you mean consolidating from one assault in to the next?

That might be what they mean by shooting units being close together is a bad thing. If a unit that wipes out a whole squad in CC can consolidate into a nearby unit, rows of conga line troops would be a terrible idea.

**Luke_Prowler**

Yes.

A lot of people are making the argument that a random charge range is better because otherwise certain assault units will be flat out better than other assault units. But the only bonus for charging is going first in assault, which for many different armies that was already the case! Eldar and Nids generally did hit first in melee. In fact, you were guaranteed it against armies with lower Init scores! So if Eldar got to go first all the time in 8th because they could charge farther, then there's no difference to how it works now.

The problem with random charges as always been about assaulting vs shooting. that critical roll of 2 meant that unit was dead. D-E-A-D dead, because the shooting army can blow it away without penalty. I would gladly allow it if some units could assault from the other end of the table if it meant I could never again fail a 4 inch charge

**Rippy**

Added to OP Joeyfox, thanks.

**Vryce**

JoeyFox wrote:
Vryce wrote:
Skerr wrote:
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.

Actually, let me retract that - 2 & 4 have been confirmed. None of the rest have been confirmed, but I can see that maybe #1 was hinted at in the facebook post when Warhammer 40000 responded to that statement and said 'Who says you still have to remove models from the front'. That could still very well be the case. 3 is simply a fever dream by people who take an article on rules to be the exact wording on how charging is actually going to work, and doesn't include the full information. And there has been no information on the Fight phase at all, let alone consolidation, so 5 is pure speculation.

Seems to imply that there will be something with regards to movement of models and failed assaults. If not, what else could it be?

It is possible that is the case. It's also possible that Black Templars will have a bespoke rule that lets them re-roll failed charges, or roll 3D6, pick the highest, or add 1" to their charge range for every model they kill in the shooting phase. We don't know.

Look, I get it, I want assault to be more viable - I have a GK army I'm currently building. So I want desperately for assault to be viable. But making a list of 5 items and claiming they've been confirmed or hinted at, when only two were actually confirmed and none had been hinted at specifically (we have vague responses on the WH40k fb page, nothing more), is slightly disingenuous. Personally, I would love for all of those to be true. But we should refrain as much as possible from misrepresenting what we know, and listing them as confirmed/hinted in a thread dedicated to the summary of the rules as we -know- them.

**KommissarKiln**

How is the 3rd point not confirmed? The Charge Phase teaser clearly states that a charging unit moves 2D6 towards the targeted enemy unit; nothing stated that failing the charge negates it. In 6th/7th, you measured distance, rolled 2D6, and either moved into B2B, or stayed exactly where you were, completely binary.

Even if this wasn't their intent, it's a very reasonable interpretation of the information we've been presented, and dismissing said interpretation as nothing more than a "fever dream" is frankly kind of rude.

**H.B.M.C.**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Unless a unit's 'bespoke' rules add to Charge range. Which is possible. Something is bound to have that, right?

Sure, but that doesn't really change the fact that 2D6" charging is stupid. 6"+D6" would'a been a good compromise.

**Azreal13**

2D6 charges tell me they didn't quite use enough fire to kill 7th.

**ERJAK**

insaniak wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

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.

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.
.

Which is a pathetically minor thing in practice and was not even in the top 10 of things holding back assault in previous editions.

(Hint: #1 is that assault has always been hideously boring data entry. Once you're in combat, the game plays itself. Maybe if assault wasn't a more tedious exercise in forgone conclusions than a Tzeentch psychic phase, it could afford to be more powerful.)

**JoeyFox**

Vryce wrote:

It is possible that is the case. It's also possible that Black Templars will have a bespoke rule that lets them re-roll failed charges, or roll 3D6, pick the highest, or add 1" to their charge range for every model they kill in the shooting phase. We don't know.

Look, I get it, I want assault to be more viable - I have a GK army I'm currently building. So I want desperately for assault to be viable. But making a list of 5 items and claiming they've been confirmed or hinted at, when only two were actually confirmed and none had been hinted at specifically (we have vague responses on the WH40k fb page, nothing more), is slightly disingenuous. Personally, I would love for all of those to be true. But we should refrain as much as possible from misrepresenting what we know, and listing them as confirmed/hinted in a thread dedicated to the summary of the rules as we -know- them.

I'm not advocating misinformation. Merely saying that there is more to be said friend, not confirming anything, though I didn't think of what you mentioned when I said "what else could it be" - so sure it may not be move the models, or some other thing. Just sharing relevant posts.

**theharrower**

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.

This. Someone that understands probability and board control. Praise the Emperor! Although I do think needing to come within an inch of a model is odd. I would prefer base to base and don't understand why the distinction here. I'd imagine there is something else we are missing.

I'm more annoyed by the loss of an extra attack when charging. I get it, striking first is a big boon, but you are going to get shot in the face to do it. I'm not going to judge the rules in a vacuum as we don't have enough info yet, but at the moment it certainly doesn't seem like assault is on par with shooting.

**Imateria**

KommissarKiln wrote:
How is the 3rd point not confirmed? The Charge Phase teaser clearly states that a charging unit moves 2D6 towards the targeted enemy unit; nothing stated that failing the charge negates it. In 6th/7th, you measured distance, rolled 2D6, and either moved into B2B, or stayed exactly where you were, completely binary.

Even if this wasn't their intent, it's a very reasonable interpretation of the information we've been presented, and dismissing said interpretation as nothing more than a "fever dream" is frankly kind of rude.

It's a teaser, not the actual rule. It didn't explicitly state one way or the other weather you can move your 2D6 charge range regardless of whether you make it into assault. Any suggestions to the contrary are pure speculation at this point.