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.

 warboss wrote:

 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?

Every d6 based board game ever.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Fight Phase sounds kinda fun. Initiative is now 'take it if you want it, but you'll get to go 2nd somewhere else'. Adds a tactical level. I'll be intrigued to see how it plays out.

It is my favorite thing about AoS. The extra layer of chargers go first will make it even more interesting.

 kronk wrote:

 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.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] while failing at humor is also bad forum etiquette. Do better.

Yeah based on the rules we have so far without a couple of pages of faction rules or rail/pulse weapons being much better than those shown so far Tau are done as a viable army, which was entirely expected when I saw who was playtesting.

On the up side my D.Eldar and Harlies should be much better .... Oh hang on that will depend on how they deal with what we're High WS&I assault armies.

I wonder given how much is being copy pasted from AoS will we get there wonderful tactics like the pretzel of doom, the conga line of command and the rest of the abuses of coherency.

I want to eat a pretzel now

 Red Corsair wrote:

 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.

I would rather see wargear costed differently for different units. S+3 rend -2 is still not equally valuable to all units because there are still differences in number of attacks, base strength, and durability. As well as depending on standard toughness, if instant death is no longer at thing, if most things are say T4 the jump from S6 to S7 is not that big a deal (assuming it still wounds on a 2+). I mean based on your logic a S3 power sword hitting on a 4+ is worth the same thing as a S4 power sword hitting on a 2+.

The best solution is to cost things differently for individual units. Which I truly hope happens, because the value of each weapon differs for each unit.

 Gamgee wrote:

 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.

while I'm not a fan of new consolidations into CC with this pile in move, and think it's a big step backwards, methinks we are being a tad melodramatic.

Tau have always been a relatively well supported army, have gotten a codex update every edition but 5th, and were always seen as a strong and highly competitive army in every edition except the second half of 5th.

They have gotten gobs of new and powerful toys over the last three or four years, more so than many other armies, and extrapolating a single core rules change to being the death of Tau and their support as a product line is a wee bit silly, particularly when Tau have more tools to mitigate this than some other armies (through suit mobility, decently armored skimmer transports, low enough numbers to keep board space open for maneuver, lack of reliance on mobility stifling infantry heavy weapons, etc).


Will this change suck for Tau? Almost certainly. Will Tau suffer the most for it? No. Will it destroy the Tau as an army so bad they'll be relegated to SoB status? No.

Vorian wrote:

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.

In shooting, you can improve your chances by being closer to get more models in rnage (both yours and the opponents)... but that isn't what we're talking about. In shooting, you dont have a high variability completely random roll to see if you can shoot ANY model at all.

As for one roll making a whole unit ineffective in shooting, that's completely wrong. You roll bad on two dice then you miss two dice worth of shots. Your heavy bolter missing two shots doesn't mean the whole rest of the squad does nothing in shooting as well. One bad 2d6 roll at most makes one model's shooting for one weapon ineffective, not every weapon in an entire unit or even just one model for your tank example in most cases. Shooting isn't an all or nothing single 2d6 roll for the entire unit just to see if they can shoot in the first place. You are right though about it not being apples to oranges though. I was mistaken and being too generous as it's closer to apples and basketballs.

Units that activate gain a free 3″ move towards the closest enemy. This can be used to get within 1″ of other enemy units, if you’re cunning, dragging more foes into the melee and preventing them from shooting next turn, even if you didn’t charge them directly (giving them no chance to overwatch). Enemy gun lines will need to be careful about how they position their supporting units, so as to avoid getting dragged into the fight too.

Another thing we have seen is that hit rolls are now fixed. This has the effect of making dedicated combat units generally hit on a 3+, while models representing the most competent warriors of the 41st Millennium (Guilliman, the Swarmlord, Ghazghkull Thraka, to name but a few) will now hit on 2+!

Close combat weapons (which we’ll look at in more detail in future) also gain new rules – some will slice through armour easily, while others will hit with enough force to cause deal multiple wounds that can cripple or kill even powerful enemy models.

Loving this so far. Need more details, though!

 Red Corsair wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 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?

Every d6 based board game ever.

I'm not sure if I should be encouraged by GW incorporating Shoots and Ladders levels of narrative forging into 40k combat.

 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?

Sorry!

SeanDrake wrote:
Yeah based on the rules we have so far without a couple of pages of faction rules or rail/pulse weapons being much better than those shown so far Tau are done as a viable army, which was entirely expected when I saw who was playtesting.

On the up side my D.Eldar and Harlies should be much better .... Oh hang on that will depend on how they deal with what we're High WS&I assault armies.

I wonder given how much is being copy pasted from AoS will we get there wonderful tactics like the pretzel of doom, the conga line of command and the rest of the abuses of coherency.

There is no way for you to know any of this. If say supporting fire still exists how are Tau obviously done? If they can buff overwatch like the can now? etc.

 Red Corsair wrote:

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.

Sounds probable. Also, now that ID likely is gone, but weapons can deal multiple wounds, the strength is no longer the only way to measure the hitting power. I'd expect power fists and such to end up with lower total strength than now but deal multiple wounds.

Does this mean you can declare a charge against unit X, who will fire overwatch, then charge them and in the fight phase use your 3" activation move to pull in another unit you didn't declare against? Robbing them of the opportunity to overwatch?

But in the same ruleset you're encouraged to declare multiple targets of a charge (and you're not allowed to move within 1" of a unit you haven't declared against during the charge phase)?

It'll be all about trying to minimise overwatch fire by picking a target to assault, while also dragging in other targets in the fight step? Weird. But I think I probably just don't get it

 Red Corsair wrote:

 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.

In your scenario, Axes are better than Fists in every way

My bet, Fist is +4 Str, -3 Rend. Thunder Hammer is +5 Str, -3 Rend that causes a wounded model to be -1 to CC attacks. Both would be -1 to Attack to represent their Unwieldy nature. That would be a buff to Guardsmen Power Fists. I do wonder how Axes and Mauls are going to be handled. But different armies should pay different prices for the same thing.

 Bull0 wrote:
Does this mean you can declare a charge against unit X, who will fire overwatch, then charge them and in the fight phase use your 3" activation move to pull in another unit you didn't declare against? Robbing them of the opportunity to overwatch?

But in the same ruleset you're encouraged to declare multiple targets of a charge (and you're not allowed to move within 1" of a unit you haven't declared against during the charge phase)?

It'll be all about trying to minimise overwatch fire by picking a target to assault, while also dragging in other targets in the fight step? Weird. But I think I probably just don't get it

It depends on a whole lot of things. Do charging models need to move their full distance? End as close as possible to the target of the charge? Move in straight lines? The 3" pile in sounds good, but may be hard to engineer depending on other rules.

 warboss wrote:

Vorian wrote:

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.

In shooting, you can improve your chances by being closer to get more models in rnage (both yours and the opponents)... but that isn't what we're talking about. In shooting, you dont have a high variability completely random roll to see if you can shoot ANY model at all.

As for one roll making a whole unit ineffective in shooting, that's completely wrong. You roll bad on two dice then you miss two dice worth of shots. Your heavy bolter missing two shots doesn't mean the whole rest of the squad does nothing in shooting as well. Shooting isn't an all or nothing single 2d6 roll for the entire unit just to see if they can shoot in the first place. You are right though about it not being apples to oranges though. I was mistaken and being too generous as it's closer to apples and basketballs.

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not making the case for shooting being better or worse. The 2d6 roll is not some hugely random thing that you can't affect.

You have control over who you declare charges with, You know the odds that it will succeed.

You can use this knowledge to make outcomes more or less likely through the application of tactics.

The likelihood of success and balance is a complete mystery because we are missing variables we need to calculate it so I'm Not wasting my time discussing it.

There is nothing inherently wrong in the mechanic. You just don't like it.

 Red Corsair wrote:
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.

This is probably the case because the assault units that saw play were the few that weren't completely poop.

Honestly, in 5th shooting was better than melee, 6th and 7th nerfed melee further. Even with all the tentative buffs to assault I have a hard time seeing how melee is going to roll all over shooting. Shooting units have the advantage of being inherently better at adapting to changing circumstances, as they have range. Remember that shooting units with heavy weapons are more mobile now than before as well.

It'll come down to what the transport rules are like, the stats of weapons, and the point costs of stuff. With falling back out of combat and the removal of Sweeping Advances I just don't see melee being lethal enough to be worth it as a strategy (i.e. you'll still charge when it's advantageous to do so, but you'll build your army around shooting, like the last 3 editions).

Red Corsair wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 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?

Every d6 based board game ever.

kronk wrote:

 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?

Sorry!

Spoiler:

I fear I have comitted a grave error...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 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.

while I'm not a fan of new consolidations into CC with this pile in move, and think it's a big step backwards, methinks we are being a tad melodramatic.

Tau have always been a relatively well supported army, have gotten a codex update every edition but 5th, and were always seen as a strong and highly competitive army in every edition except the second half of 5th.

They have gotten gobs of new and powerful toys over the last three or four years, more so than many other armies, and extrapolating a single core rules change to being the death of Tau and their support as a product line is a wee bit silly, particularly when Tau have more tools to mitigate this than some other armies (through suit mobility, decently armored skimmer transports, low enough numbers to keep board space open for maneuver, lack of reliance on mobility stifling infantry heavy weapons, etc).


Will this change suck for Tau? Almost certainly. Will Tau suffer the most for it? No. Will it destroy the Tau as an army so bad they'll be relegated to SoB status? No.

The information is coming too fast for the naysayers to keep their stories straight

If you check the other 40k news thread, it's a three-page argument about how assault is dead in 8th edition! But simultaneously, in this thread, assault has been buffed so significantly that the Tau have been rendered completely obsolete as a faction! At this rate there won't be anyone left playing 40k...

If someone has already decided their faction is useless now, with how little information we have, I doubt anyone will be able to dissuade them! Neither side of this story has the real truth of the matter, yet.

 Bull0 wrote:
Does this mean you can declare a charge against unit X, who will fire overwatch, then charge them and in the fight phase use your 3" activation move to pull in another unit you didn't declare against? Robbing them of the opportunity to overwatch?

But in the same ruleset you're encouraged to declare multiple targets of a charge (and you're not allowed to move within 1" of a unit you haven't declared against during the charge phase)?

It'll be all about trying to minimise overwatch fire by picking a target to assault, while also dragging in other targets in the fight step? Weird. But I think I probably just don't get it

Yes. Basicly you got it.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

I think people are underestimating the new pile in multi-combat. It will be very, very easy to do for large units with a spread out line formation..

Yeeeeep, There's a formation that can include upto 300 orks in a single unit right now!....

hey wait a second, what happens for units that are composed of models with different move stats? can you put bikes at the front of slow moving assault units and have them pull things like terminators along for the ride?

I think what i was looking for (as someone who leans towards close quaters themed armies) with assault was for it to 'feel' less of a chore.

So far the new stuff kinda just makes me think 'same as before, a chore' no better or worse really than before... but still meh

one thing i was hoping for was either overwatch or fighting back in the first phase, not both... a choice... but nope :(

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 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.

I would rather see wargear costed differently for different units. S+3 rend -2 is still not equally valuable to all units because there are still differences in number of attacks, base strength, and durability. As well as depending on standard toughness, if instant death is no longer at thing, if most things are say T4 the jump from S6 to S7 is not that big a deal (assuming it still wounds on a 2+). I mean based on your logic a S3 power sword hitting on a 4+ is worth the same thing as a S4 power sword hitting on a 2+.

The best solution is to cost things differently for individual units. Which I truly hope happens, because the value of each weapon differs for each unit.

If the unit is priced appropriately for it's battlefield roll then you already have that compensation factored into it's initial cost. Makes zero sense for an equal upgrade to cost differently between two units. If the unit wielding it is better or worse then that should be taken care of in it's base cost.

 kronk wrote:

 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?

Sorry!

Secret codename (ala Blue Harvest for Star Wars) for 8th edition 40k confirmed!

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 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.

I would rather see wargear costed differently for different units. S+3 rend -2 is still not equally valuable to all units because there are still differences in number of attacks, base strength, and durability. As well as depending on standard toughness, if instant death is no longer at thing, if most things are say T4 the jump from S6 to S7 is not that big a deal (assuming it still wounds on a 2+). I mean based on your logic a S3 power sword hitting on a 4+ is worth the same thing as a S4 power sword hitting on a 2+.

The best solution is to cost things differently for individual units. Which I truly hope happens, because the value of each weapon differs for each unit.

If the unit is priced appropriately for it's battlefield roll then you already have that compensation factored into it's initial cost. Makes zero sense for an equal upgrade to cost differently between two units. If the unit wielding it is better or worse then that should be taken care of in it's base cost.

Hrm, base cost cannot cover everything and reflects different things. A 25pt Powerfist on a marine is worth way more than the same 25pt powerfist on a Guardsmen, even a relatively expensive one like a Scion that roughly matches SM pricing for example.

40k just generally kind of glosses over that.

 davou wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

I think people are underestimating the new pile in multi-combat. It will be very, very easy to do for large units with a spread out line formation..

Yeeeeep, There's a formation that can include upto 300 orks in a single unit right now!....

hey wait a second, what happens for units that are composed of models with different move stats? can you put bikes at the front of slow moving assault units and have them pull things like terminators along for the ride?

Remember characters won't join units anymore. I think heterogeneous units will be much less common. Deathwatch could be an exception tho.

Spoletta wrote:
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.

No! Charging needs to be M+D6 or else the game is completely trash and CC is nonviable!

/s

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 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.

I would rather see wargear costed differently for different units. S+3 rend -2 is still not equally valuable to all units because there are still differences in number of attacks, base strength, and durability. As well as depending on standard toughness, if instant death is no longer at thing, if most things are say T4 the jump from S6 to S7 is not that big a deal (assuming it still wounds on a 2+). I mean based on your logic a S3 power sword hitting on a 4+ is worth the same thing as a S4 power sword hitting on a 2+.

The best solution is to cost things differently for individual units. Which I truly hope happens, because the value of each weapon differs for each unit.

If the unit is priced appropriately for it's battlefield roll then you already have that compensation factored into it's initial cost. Makes zero sense for an equal upgrade to cost differently between two units. If the unit wielding it is better or worse then that should be taken care of in it's base cost.

This is clearly wrong, and always has been a problem in 40k. points costs are not granular enough on units for this to be true. Essentially how do you take into account how much the unit is improved by said wargear in its base cost without said wargear? What you are saying is that at 25 point powerfist on a 14 point marine and a 25 point fist on a 5 point guardsman is all taken into account by the 9 point difference. But that difference is fixed for all weapons, when the effectiveness given different weapons is not all the same. For instance right now a Techmarine and a Librarian cost the exact same, and combi-weapons on those models have identical costs, but a BS 5 combi-weapon, is 16% more effective than a BS 4 Combi-weapon. This leads to having upgrades that are basically useless on some models. It also insinuates that all types of power weapons are equally effective because they all cost the same on each model. Individually pricing wargear makes much more sense

Don't think it has been discussed before... but if you now only need to get within 1" of an enemy unit to engage it in melee... it means the reach of the pile in move to tie in another unit is effectively not just 3", but actually 4".