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.

 Gamgee wrote:
So doesn't this just encourage gunlines to spread out?

With 1500 points worth of models on a 6ft table, there're only so many places to spread.

Vorian wrote:

There is some randomness throughout the game - just because there is a little bit in this particular case doesn't suddenly make the entire game snakes and ladders.

A single 2d6 roll to see if an entire unit of up to 50 models does nothing during an entire phase under ideal circumstances on their own turn with no cause from the opposing player is the exact opposite of "a little bit" of randomness... especially if that phase is its supposed specialty.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

changemod wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 nintura wrote:
So instead of spreading your models out 2" to avoid blasts, now you gotta spread your units out so they don't get dragged in

How much you need to spread your models depends on how large the assaulting force is.

5 assault marines will not be able to cover very much. 30 orks or 9 bloodcrushers will. This is because as they wrap around to get into base to base with the nearest enemy, they have a better chance of 'clipping' an adjoining unit.

Here's the thing: In Sigmar you aren't allowed to "wrap around". If there are two of your guys between the guy you want to pile in and the enemy, then that guy is out of luck and stuck where he is.

That doesn't matter when the attacking unit and the assault looks similar to this:



The models at the edges of the stretched out charging unit will still end up closer to the Unit A and C after the charge than the initially charged unit in the middle. As a result they get to move towards those uninvolved units at the beginning of the 'fight' phase and if they are within 3" then they get to suck them into the combat without anything ever getting stuck. Unit A and C never get a change to overwatch either as the player of the red unit never declared a charge against them. This is a massive buff for giant but cheap melee units, especially now that templates are gone.

"Massive buff" implies people are going to mess up their positioning that poorly on a regular basis. All you need to do is spread out slightly more and stagger how far forwards your units are a little and the geometry is suddenly all wrong.

 Gamgee wrote:
So doesn't this just encourage gunlines to spread out?

Not that much space to spread out if you hide in a far corner.
Also kinda hard to use your shorter ranged guns of your ranged army efficiently or hold objectives when your units are all spread out from each other. Makes focus firing all that much harder, before even considering the possible additional LoS blocking terrain or more armor saves resulting from intervening terrain pieces.

And if you need to constantly move your ranged units you will suffer from the movement penalties e.g. for heavy weapons, which is quite bad for lower accuracy armies such as the IG.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
So doesn't this just encourage gunlines to spread out?

With 1500 points worth of models on a 6ft table, there're only so many places to spread.

Having never played AoS compared to fantasy. Didn't AoS shrink the amount of models on the table down? Won't a similar thing happen to 40k?

Bringing specific broken units form previous edition as justification for making melee even less viable in a new one? Smooth. Should I then follow your logic and claim that 7th edition melee was extremely viable since wulfen + thunderwolf cav would absolutely wreck faces turn 1-2?
Oh well, I'm sure 8th will be perfectly balanced and won't have a single broken unit, god forbid a shooty one. Because this + glorified multicharge and a sizable amount of wishful thinking will somehow balance out melee units having no protection from shooting whatsoever.

 warboss wrote:

Vorian wrote:

There is some randomness throughout the game - just because there is a little bit in this particular case doesn't suddenly make the entire game snakes and ladders.

A single 2d6 roll to see if an entire unit does nothing during an entire phase under ideal circumstances is the exact opposite of "a little bit" of randomness... especially if that phase is its supposed specialty.

Precisely. 2D6 charge is a gotcha mechanic that requires "a plan B" whereas shooting armies can just keep on repeating plan A as much as they want.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 warboss wrote:

Vorian wrote:

Yup, I loathe no pre measuring. Let's sit and umm and ahh about if the distance is 8.1 inches or 7.9 inches for 20 minutes before I declare this charge!

If your opponent is vacilating for 20 minutes over a charge without premeasuring then he or she is a tfg who would also spend 40 minutes spacing out each unit premeasuring each fig to your squads to minimize your shooting's effectiveness . Bad tabletop manners are NOT a justification for bad game mechanics.

Pre-measuring is simply not a bad game mechanic - it works brilliantly in a huge variety of systems and boardgames - well they use squares, hexes etc.

It might not be clear if you take that single post in exculsion of the rest of the thread but the bad mechanic I'm referring to is completely random charge distances under ideal circumstances. Premeasuring is being used to justify that bad mechanics inclusion. Premeasuring is fine imo in future scifi games (less so in fantasy/histoircal games thematically) especially in low to mid model count games (less so imo with independently movable high model count games).

Depending on how they balance this it could be the end of every ranged army. The Imperial Guard and Tau get hit the hardest for sure though. This one rule might kill any ranged army. Especially depending on terrain placement.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?

I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.

All assault oriented armies have one or more of the following traits:

- Durability
- Numbers
- Speed
- Transports

With the ranged damage decreased all across the board, these traits will be enough to bring a sizeable force in the face of your enemy. The disengage mechanic is absolutely needed, or the game would be too much stacked in favor of assault.

Forcing ranged armies to spread out prevents castling, affects their ability to focus fire and makes them more vulnerable to flankers.

Seems like a fine trade off to me.

It is definitely stacked in favor of assault now. Let me tell you. I'm running everything I know about the rules through my head so far and with the know rules can't see any way for ranged armies to inflict enough damage at range or survive being charged.

Unless they give the Tau and IG a lot of unique rules they are not going to stand a chance with the default rules. Tau will definitely need buffed Kroot and Vespid to have any chance now and I see that as likely to happen as the moon is to be replaced by the sun tomorrow.

In theory this prevents castling, but with the boards being so small there is no way to be mobile and spread out. This just prevents ranged armies from having any options in their moment to die and die.

Eyjio wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Didn't those editions also have no premeasuring? Wasn't that a thing?

Yeah, but anyone who played those editions enough can now accurately judge distances of up to 8 ft within an inch usually. I remember a store near me had an event where you had to guess the range of some prizes on the other side of a room - the most someone was off was 2". No premeasuring was largely just a thing which hurt new players; even the vets bad at judging distance would surreptitiously use their forearms and memorise how long those were. One of the most pointless rules before 6e, and one of the few great changes 6e brought along.

Ha ha, yea those guys used magic to predict distance, they totally never checked 2" coherency and glanced at the tape, or they never would do a thing like measure vehicle hulls or realize standard bases were 1" diameter in order to estimate distances using models like a key. Yea, they were just awesome! It's not like we know the table is 48" wide and measured 12" deployment zones then watched them move 6". Nah, they were totally wizards.

OR

There was a lot of shady [MOD EDIT - Do not circumvent the expletive filter - Alpharius] from lack of pre measuring. Besides, it's worse game design for someone with better vision, eyesight or whose played for years to have an edge on Timmy who's never played.

theocracity wrote:
Forcing ranged armies to spread out prevents castling, affects their ability to focus fire and makes them more vulnerable to flankers.

Seems like a fine trade off to me.

Yep, this is basically what I'm taking away from the new rules as well. Especially because being spread out also makes it harder for other units to effectively help out a disengaging unit (particularly as horde infantry killing firepower tends to be more short ranged).

Both my Wolves, GKs and ally IG units as well as the Tau army I plan to build for the next edition will sure be interesting to play.

yep, my strongest tau deployments have always been castles, not spread out gunlines

 warboss wrote:

Vorian wrote:

There is some randomness throughout the game - just because there is a little bit in this particular case doesn't suddenly make the entire game snakes and ladders.

A single 2d6 roll to see if an entire unit does nothing during an entire phase under ideal circumstances is the exact opposite of "a little bit" of randomness... especially if that phase is its supposed specialty.

And you only have one unit? You can't affect the chances of success through positioning? You have confirmation that there aren't other abilities / wargear / etc to further affect this (given that AoS has plenty that would be a surprise)?

Is it stupid that a tank can miss a shot? Uhh, I rolled one dice and this unit did nothing, what a bad mechanic!

As I said, you're free to not like it, just don't pretend it's for some universal truth that people who do like it are violating. That's nonsensical

 Red Corsair wrote:

Spoiler:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.

The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.

No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?

Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.

I think I understand it now. If there are multiple combats going on, you each select a unit from any of those combats and make your attacks. Then select a different unit. From the looks of it, the player whose turn it is always chooses first. So if there is only one combat, the turn player goes first.

Overall, I am fine with this. Especially if my Death Company are going to be able to freely bounce into another combat and continue to wreck face. I am hoping Power Fists do additional wounds. Same with Thunder Hammers, though with Concussive gone, I wonder how those two weapons will be differentiated.

Looks like I will need to make Pedro Kantor a Command Squad to run with him. Pistols and Power Weapons for everyone. Possibly some Power Fists. That or he will be rolling with a Terminator Squad in a Land Raider Crusader.

Your making the mistake of assuming things will remain the same as they are now. My bet is they go back to 2nd ed and no longer double strength. A power fist could be +3 strength -2 rend while a thunder hammer could be +4 strength -3 rend. OR they could both be +X strength but one does more rend.

Oh I fully expect them to be different. The way they talked about them being Unwieldy makes me think a -1 to Attack for both. Now that attack strength isn't capped, Fists and Hammers could do things like x2 for the Fist and x2+1 for the hammer. Or Concussive could reduce the WS of the target (they are stunned by the impact, so they strike confusingly).

I am looking forward to more stats. Swords probably have a -1 Rend or -2 Rend (assuming Chainswords are differentiated from plain CCWs by giving them a -1 Rend).

 Azreal13 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?

I can't think of one other game that I've played. Even those that feature movement modifiers have set values so you'd know their impact before making any decision on what you did with that unit.

I think the bigger issue is that no other game really handles clost combat the way GW does in general. Most just have you use normal movement to get into CC range and no "locking" of units in CC, if such is applicable. Flames of War had a distinct assault phase like 40k with set movement, but also isnt trying to micromanage every single infantryman's positioning either, it's an entire platoon acting as a unit, along with dramatically more dangerous over watch effects (essentially full normal shooting and then 5 hits on the assaulting unit will stop the assault dead as the assaulter is now Pinned Down).

 Gamgee wrote:
...

Tau will definitely need buffed ....

Welcome to the bottom tier, my friend.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
...

Tau will definitely need buffed ....

Welcome to the bottom tier, my friend.

It's not even surprising. Then like the dark Eldar nerf which killed theirs sales no more model support and no more Tau. Would be mad if it wasn't so predictable.

People need to consider the benefit of assault being an additional phase. Is it random? yes, but some units are good at everything, like marines, whereas fire warriors only do shooting. So while assault is random that marine gets to move, shoot effectively and attempt a valid assault. A firewarrior is committing suicide by assaulting most things, that gives the units that are good at assault more actions. Some units only assault though is the quip, but units that only assault have things like Ere We Go, fleet, dunestrider etc etc. Units made for assault RARELY fail charges, I Honestly can't remember failing an assault distance with my DE, die to overwatch sure, but making the range is easy with transports, premeasure and fleet.

It's also BS to compare random charges to the shooting consistency in the game. Yea, I get to shoot my Guardsmen turn 1, but I generally have a shot or two. Your ork gets to shoot once in range, shoot in combat BUT he also gets 4 attacks a piece in HTH, in each turn.There is a reason why all decent deathstars in 40k currently are assault based. Assault even in 7th is WAY more efficient.

Vorian wrote:

And you only have one unit? You can't affect the chances of success through positioning? You have confirmation that there aren't other abilities / wargear / etc to further affect this (given that AoS has plenty that would be a surprise)?

Is it stupid that a tank can miss a shot? Uhh, I rolled one dice and this unit did nothing, what a bad mechanic!

As I said, you're free to not like it, just don't pretend it's for some universal truth that people who do like it are violating. That's nonsensical

Positioning can only worsen the 2d6 die roll, not improve it. 2d6 is already under ideal circumstances. To my knowledge, there is no inherent bonus to charging down hill or having a rotund model roll instead that improves that basic 2d6. You can only probably take gear for some units in some armies to help for points. Positioning can only worsen your chances below 2d6.

As for your tank missing a shot, that's an apples to oranges comparison. A model can roll a 1 and miss its melee attack just like the tank. The difference is that the tank doesn't need to wade through 1+ turns of risk free enemy melee attacks and possibly get destroyed first just to make completely random roll to see if it can shoot in the for the first time on a subsequent turn... and then miss.

Bleh.

Yep but explaining that to the mob is another thing. I hope there's no limit on ml save reduction to make up for the insane assault rules.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any other non-GW game where the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move?

Monopoly?

 warboss wrote:

Vorian wrote:

And you only have one unit? You can't affect the chances of success through positioning? You have confirmation that there aren't other abilities / wargear / etc to further affect this (given that AoS has plenty that would be a surprise)?

Is it stupid that a tank can miss a shot? Uhh, I rolled one dice and this unit did nothing, what a bad mechanic!

As I said, you're free to not like it, just don't pretend it's for some universal truth that people who do like it are violating. That's nonsensical

Positioning can only worsen the 2d6 die roll, not improve it. 2d6 is already under ideal circumstances. To my knowledge, there is no inherent bonus to charging down hill or having a rotund model roll instead that improves that basic 2d6. You can only probably take gear for some units in some armies to help for points. Positioning can only worsen your chances below 2d6.

As for your tank missing a shot, that's an apples to oranges comparison. A model can roll a 1 and miss its melee attack just like the tank. The difference is that the tank doesn't need to wade through 1+ turns of risk free enemy melee attacks and possibly get destroyed first just to make completely random roll to see if it can shoot in the for the first time on a subsequent turn... and then miss.

You can improve your chances by simply... being closer when you try to charge?

It's not comparing Apples to oranges at all. It's directly referring to your statement. One roll of the dice can make that unit completely ineffective for a turn. It wouldn't make the slightest difference even if there wasn't that equivalency because there is nothing inherently wrong in that situation anyway.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Spoiler:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.

The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.

No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?

Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.

I think I understand it now. If there are multiple combats going on, you each select a unit from any of those combats and make your attacks. Then select a different unit. From the looks of it, the player whose turn it is always chooses first. So if there is only one combat, the turn player goes first.

Overall, I am fine with this. Especially if my Death Company are going to be able to freely bounce into another combat and continue to wreck face. I am hoping Power Fists do additional wounds. Same with Thunder Hammers, though with Concussive gone, I wonder how those two weapons will be differentiated.

Looks like I will need to make Pedro Kantor a Command Squad to run with him. Pistols and Power Weapons for everyone. Possibly some Power Fists. That or he will be rolling with a Terminator Squad in a Land Raider Crusader.

Your making the mistake of assuming things will remain the same as they are now. My bet is they go back to 2nd ed and no longer double strength. A power fist could be +3 strength -2 rend while a thunder hammer could be +4 strength -3 rend. OR they could both be +X strength but one does more rend.

Oh I fully expect them to be different. The way they talked about them being Unwieldy makes me think a -1 to Attack for both. Now that attack strength isn't capped, Fists and Hammers could do things like x2 for the Fist and x2+1 for the hammer. Or Concussive could reduce the WS of the target (they are stunned by the impact, so they strike confusingly).

I am looking forward to more stats. Swords probably have a -1 Rend or -2 Rend (assuming Chainswords are differentiated from plain CCWs by giving them a -1 Rend).

Just my bet here but I am banking on flat addition modifiers. I doubt we will see x2 anymore. It's way more consistent to just say a fist adds say +3 st with a -2 rend because now it's worth 25pts to whoever is using it unlike now, where a guardsmen gets screwed royally. It also adds more granularity, a guardsmen with a fist would be s6 while a marine s7 while a custode s8 etc etc.

BTW I hope chainswords are rend 1 as well. In second they were s4 rend 1 while a power sword was s6 rend 2 and an axe was s7 rend 3, swords could parry. I don't like flat strength from the weapons but I did like that they all had different armor piercing properties.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

And the jump pack troopers suffering from the same problem jump up and down in the air in front of the enemy shooting their pistols I presume? Just selectively picking one unit type and constructing a strawman (especially considering I didn't even mention bikes) to dismiss my point won't do. Nor did you adress the concern and issue of just arbitarily banning units starting the game on the board and normally moving to the enemy from assaulting them despite being in range and theeeeen them just magically being able to do so in round 2.

So...when you said that people were going to complain about A B or C, what you really meant was that YOU were going to complain about it. You should be more honest if you want to participate on a discussion forum.

Lies are bad wrong. badong, even. Do better.