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:

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.

And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
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".

Yep.

also if it really is a near copy pasta of AOS, some melee weapons will have range. so most fists will be 1", a power spear could be 2-3". im hoping pistols get to be used in CC

 warboss wrote:


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.

Higher reward for charging, higher risk. The charge is also giving you a hefty movement which is huge for objective control and actually scoring points in a mission while the shooter is stuck stationary (except for those cursed eldar but even they don't get to move as far as a charge while shooting).

 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.

Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.

And to be pedantic, any game without premeasuring means that "the distance a piece is going to move isn't totally clear before it actually tries to move..." (emphasis mine).

But that's hardly ideal unless I missed the section in On War where Clauswitz praised carpenters for their ability to predict the viability of a battlefield charges and artillery fire. But then, it's been a while since I read it.

All the random movement does is allow for surprise in an environment where everyone has perfect knowledge of the situation. Most tabletop wargames that aren't using hexes have a lot of trouble creating a situation where you can effectively and intuitively (and most of all quickly and without a ton of fuss) hide information from the other player. They are even worse at hiding information from both players. This is why Kriegspiel (the grand daddy of all war games) used a third party ref in place of, say, dice. But most companies are unwilling to ship humans in their starter sets, so we've got to make due with dice these days. But back to the initial point, the inclusion of a random charge is for a specific reason and is less to a player out of their charge, but more to make it impossible for faster armies to perfectly predict their end positions in such a way as to always avoid taking a charge from a unit with slower static move values. But in general, you don't want to punish a player for superior positioning either, so ideally you want something with a curve so that long shots are less likely. This curve allows for risk assessment in a way that even a smaller, linear variance doesn't. So why aren't gun ranges random? Because the kiting problem exists far less with most weapons (outside of the shortest ranged ones) and because those same enemies are using weapons with similar ranges (including the shortest ranged ones) and so unless they have a unit with significantly higher range (at which point LoS-blocking terrain will often become a determining factor) than their victim they have little to no onus to stay out of weapon range. Basically most units already have to get inside 24" to actually throw bones and knock the enemy down, there is no need to create a destabilizing mechanic to bring folks in to a fight there. But assault? With chargers striking first? You better believe every fast army has a vested interest in avoiding it with their shooty units and getting stuck in with their slicy units. In an environment with perfect knowledge of where every piece is, movement becomes a multi-faceted advantage in ways it shouldn't be but is because of our god's eye view. So some fog of war is needed to make our information imperfect. Lots of ways to do that, GW went with one with a bell curve (well peak) distribution to make edge-results less common while making the middle results a lot more reliable. May or may not be the perfect distribution, but to be certain, random movement in this case is a fine way to handle the fog of war where charging is concerned.

But I have a feeling this is a thing not many are willing to budge on. Personally? I played dwarfs in WFB for a long time and a combo of being a footslogging, cavalry-less race with many great hand-to-hand units meant that that 2d6 charge was a godsend. I could finally try to get the charge off on orcs, humans, and even elves. It meant I didn't just have to go with a straight defensive gunline 24/7. Probably helped that snake eyes meant I was only charging a total of 1" less than my original charge range, but I thought the change roll was a clever way of making faster armies less omniscient.

Quote system is messing me up - not my image.

I'd point out that shooting units will deploy base to base most of the time, so it will be easier to spread out units. Their footprint will be much smaller. I do like the idea of formation and placement being more important in assault though.

 Ronin_eX 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?

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.

Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.

Whoa whoa whoa we all know Stargrunt II is a terrible system and not venerated by virtually every miniatures wargames designer in the industry...

The SGII dice shifting/quality mechanic is still one of the best unified mechanics ever made.

Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?

Soon to be out of date, recently purchased codex store credit:
https://www.Soon to be out of date, recently purchased codex store credit:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/just-bought-a-codex-dont-worry-weve-got-you-covered/

They don't cover the Gather Storm Rule Books However. I just called Customer Service to get a refund for my Fracture of Biel-Tann that I bought a few weeks before 8th edition was confirmed. They said no, because it isn't a rule book but a narrative. Do they have a Facebook page where you can lodge a public complaint?

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.

Yep it was so obvious this was going to happen.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?

I think it was also confirmed in one of Pete Foley's tweets quite soon after the initial announcement of 8th Edition. Same with units being able to disembark and assault from (moving? don't remember exactly) vehicles.

Probably save to assume that it works like I heard of AoS where it seems to be the case that a character model within 2" of another (multi-model) unit can't be targeted directly, so you basically still tag along with your bodyguards but without the whole complex joining unit lock engage/disengage rule bloat, also making it easier for the character to leave the unit for charging/assaulting a different target. as well as being free to always choose a different target to shoot.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?

I think it was also confirmed in one of Pete Foley's tweets quite soon after the initial announcement of 8th Edition. Same with units being able to disembark and assault from (moving? don't remember exactly) vehicles.

i forget isnt there a Lookout mechanic in AOS?

its possible if characters cant join groups but can still get LOS attempts from a model near by.

 Desubot wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?

I think it was also confirmed in one of Pete Foley's tweets quite soon after the initial announcement of 8th Edition. Same with units being able to disembark and assault from (moving? don't remember exactly) vehicles.

i forget isnt there a Lookout mechanic in AOS?

its possible if characters cant join groups but can still get LOS attempts from a model near by.

Yep, just updated my post.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.

Striking in your opponents turn will no longer be guaranteed. It will be your opponents choice whether they allow you to strike in their turn, or whether they leave combat in their movement phase.

Daedalus81 wrote:

And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.

Only if you cherry pick the units, the range, and completely ignore the fact that assault units must skip at a minimum one turn usually two to get to that first charge while simultaneously sustaining casualties themselves in the meantime. Is it increased? Sure...but that is to make up for the other things that been constant since 3rd... prior to the intro of completely random charges and overwatch.

 warboss wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.

Only if you cherry pick the units, the range, and completely ignore the fact that assault units must skip at a minimum one turn usually two to get to that first charge while simultaneously sustaining casualties themselves in the meantime. Is it increased? Sure...but that is to make up for the other things that been constant since 3rd... prior to the intro of completely random charges and overwatch.

Wellllllll charging out of transports is a thing soooooooooooo it shouldn't be nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.

will keep saying we dont have the full picture.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

All the random movement does is allow for surprise in an environment where everyone has perfect knowledge of the situation. Most tabletop wargames that aren't using hexes have a lot of trouble creating a situation where you can effectively and intuitively (and most of all quickly and without a ton of fuss) hide information from the other player. They are even worse at hiding information from both players. This is why Kriegspiel (the grand daddy of all war games) used a third party ref in place of, say, dice. But most companies are unwilling to ship humans in their starter sets, so we've got to make due with dice these days. But back to the initial point, the inclusion of a random charge is for a specific reason and is less to a player out of their charge, but more to make it impossible for faster armies to perfectly predict their end positions in such a way as to always avoid taking a charge from a unit with slower static move values. But in general, you don't want to punish a player for superior positioning either, so ideally you want something with a curve so that long shots are less likely. This curve allows for risk assessment in a way that even a smaller, linear variance doesn't. So why aren't gun ranges random? Because the kiting problem exists far less with most weapons (outside of the shortest ranged ones) and because those same enemies are using weapons with similar ranges (including the shortest ranged ones) and so unless they have a unit with significantly higher range (at which point LoS-blocking terrain will often become a determining factor) than their victim they have little to no onus to stay out of weapon range. Basically most units already have to get inside 24" to actually throw bones and knock the enemy down, there is no need to create a destabilizing mechanic to bring folks in to a fight there. But assault? With chargers striking first? You better believe every fast army has a vested interest in avoiding it with their shooty units and getting stuck in with their slicy units. In an environment with perfect knowledge of where every piece is, movement becomes a multi-faceted advantage in ways it shouldn't be but is because of our god's eye view. So some fog of war is needed to make our information imperfect. Lots of ways to do that, GW went with one with a bell curve (well peak) distribution to make edge-results less common while making the middle results a lot more reliable. May or may not be the perfect distribution, but to be certain, random movement in this case is a fine way to handle the fog of war where charging is concerned.

This is such an intelligent, well-reasoned point that it almost restores my faith in the Dakka community.

(almost.)

Daedalus81 wrote:
And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.

How many units get 2 attacks compared to units with rapid fire, autocannons, assault cannons, etc? Seems like a bold claim to say the least. Not to mention you don't necessarily hit in both players' turns any more and also the enemy can hit you back (twice, effectively - both overwatch and actual attacks)...

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
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".

3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.

Eyjio wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
And yet most combat units have 2 or 3 times (or more) the number of attacks than ranged units have shots ON TOP of being able to attack in BOTH player's turns.

How many units get 2 attacks compared to units with rapid fire, autocannons, assault cannons, etc? Seems like a bold claim to say the least. Not to mention you don't necessarily hit in both players' turns any more and also the enemy can hit you back (twice, effectively - both overwatch and actual attacks)...

.. and they can shoot you in the run up to your charge as it will likely take you at least a turn to make contact.

 Desubot wrote:
Wellllllll charging out of transports is a thing soooooooooooo it shouldn't be nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.

will keep saying we dont have the full picture.

I agree. I sadly fell hook line and sinker for the well laid red herring trap of trying to compare apples to basketballs along with the overall related but not the same point of comparing total shooting effectiveness vs assault when the original point of contention was just the completely random charge as the default in ideal conditions. I'm not trying to say that one is overall more powerful than the other (except when I gullibly take the bait with horribad comparisons) but rather that random charges only add randomness and not depth nor tactics to the game. Sometime you pull off a ridiculous charge... and equally you screw up what should be no brainer 5 yard dashes. My point is that the penduulum swings too wildly between the two with little to no input on the part of the player in most cases.

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.

"Badong" is the name of my WHAM! cover band.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?

I believe that was confirmed either in the announcement FAQ or one of the designers' tweets shortly thereafter.

 warboss wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Wellllllll charging out of transports is a thing soooooooooooo it shouldn't be nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.

will keep saying we dont have the full picture.

I agree. I sadly fell hook line and sinker for the well laid red herring trap of trying to compare apples to basketballs along with the overall related but not the same point of comparing total shooting effectiveness vs assault when the original point of contention was just the completely random charge as the default in ideal conditions. I'm not trying to say that one is overall more powerful than the other (except when I gullibly take the bait) but rather that random charges only add randomness. Sometime you pull off a ridiculous charge... and equally you screw up what should be no brainer 5 yard dashes. My point is that the penduulum swings too wildly between the two with little to no input on the part of the player in most cases.

Well its true

i honestly do think that some things shouldn't be nearly as random. like bikes and jump packs should have momentum, meaning it should be a minimum move + D6 for random variable like say the jump pack guy didnt position right and undershot his jump trajectory. (m +d6)
i think certain things should have a better time advancing like a lumbering lemon russ should be slow but "consistent" if its normal movement was 4, then why is it getting to move up to 6 inchs more suddenly. but i dont necessarily think 2d6 is all that bad. sure shooting may have a bit more advantage over assaulting. but i think it wont be nearly as bad as a lot of the things that made charging bad from the last several additions may change. im thinking casualties will be removed from wherever you want. so no more hiding special weapons. this might make snipers actually very useful. i still haven't seen confirmation but its possible you might be able to charge after advancing which is a huge bonus for movement (3d6 charge) there should and could be compromise but im liking the spoilers so far. i happening to think AOS is a good game so take it with salt.

Tresson wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
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".

3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.

You only get the 3 inch pile in if you successfully make it into 1" on the charge. If they follow the AoS wording, you can only move directly towards the closest enemy, which prevents you from just getting a full 3 inches of movement and surrounding the enemy. Now.. that's not to say they WILL follow that wording.. so who knows.

As much as the mechanics are following the AoS mechanics, there are numerous changes that they are improving upon that AoS was the lesson learned for.

So as I was getting caught p in the thread a few things crossed my mind on some changes that buffed assault so far:

1. Wounds don't pull from the front. This means less sudden increases in distance between an assault unit and it's target due to being shot or via Overwatch.

2. Rend values on basic weapons look like they're going to be mostly 0s. This means horde and lightly armoured assault units (Nids, Orks, Banshees, Dark Eldar) can weather shooting more, and also have an increased survival rate when being shot at.

3. Assaulting from transports seems to be in. While this doesn't directly help Nids (save for the Spore Pod), it does give most assault units an increased durability to getting in close enough safely before they start stabbing people.

4. Pile in to pull in enemy units is a nice buff to horde armies as well since it can help tie up multiple units more easily, allow people to assault transports to get a free pile-in on the disembarked occupants, ect. A mechanic for negating overwatch that doesn't cost Command Points or wargear upgrades is good and promotes tactics on both sides.

Random 2D6" is less offensive with the first two points in consideration as they were the biggest reason people would have trouble making charges in the old edition. Increased basic durability with the most common ranged weapons not negating saves means shooting lost some tooth so that assault units have an increased chance of making it into combat with more numbers. And the tactical push of the consolidation move allowing you to pile into nearby units helps decrease some strategies (castle and gunline) which may find the best option is to spread their forces out instead of building walls of models to protect the squishier things.

Now without seeing ALL the rules I can't promise that everything is as good as it looks right now, but I do feel assault is looking to have some buffs (especially if rend values are centered around melee weapons instead of ranged weapons) and shooting got toned back appropiately. Army building looks like it'll need a mix of assault and shooting units to be successful and that makes my little black heart very warm indeed.

 Rezyn wrote:

Tresson wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
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".

3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.

You only get the 3 inch pile in if you successfully make it into 1" on the charge. If they follow the AoS wording, you can only move directly towards the closest enemy, which prevents you from just getting a full 3 inches of movement and surrounding the enemy. Now.. that's not to say they WILL follow that wording.. so who knows.

As much as the mechanics are following the AoS mechanics, there are numerous changes that they are improving upon that AoS was the lesson learned for.

Underlined is not true. You have to move closer to the nearest enemy, but not directly. If I start 3" away from your model, and move laterally so now I am 2.5" away from him but also moved 90 degrees clockwise, that is a valid Pile In.

Being charged by a unit of the same point cost of the target is the same as being hit by a weapon that makes you lose 40% of your models and has the rule "Skip next turn or remove all models as casualties". Since there is no ranged weapon that powerful that does that kind of effect on a same cost target (even more in 8th) it stands to reason that assault must incur in higher risks to deliver such a blow.

 Rezyn wrote:

Tresson wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
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".

3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.

You only get the 3 inch pile in if you successfully make it into 1" on the charge. If they follow the AoS wording, you can only move directly towards the closest enemy, which prevents you from just getting a full 3 inches of movement and surrounding the enemy. Now.. that's not to say they WILL follow that wording.. so who knows.

As much as the mechanics are following the AoS mechanics, there are numerous changes that they are improving upon that AoS was the lesson learned for.

In AoS it's not "directly" towards, just 'towards' (i.e. you must finish the pile-in move closer to the closest enemy model. This means if you are 2" away you can move towards the closest model, and shimmy around them a bit, as long as you finish your move 0.1" closer. This way the front ranks can orbit around to allow the second ranks to get stuck in too.

If you're playing a defensive army it can be good to keep your formation tight and "tag" as many bases when you pile-in. If you are touching a model they cannot make any pile-in move that would allow them to get closer, and thus they cannot orbit around your base to make more room for others.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Have they actually confirmed that characters won't join units or are people just extrapolating AoS?

I think it was also confirmed in one of Pete Foley's tweets quite soon after the initial announcement of 8th Edition. Same with units being able to disembark and assault from (moving? don't remember exactly) vehicles.

i forget isnt there a Lookout mechanic in AOS?

its possible if characters cant join groups but can still get LOS attempts from a model near by.

Yep, just updated my post.

There is no Look Out Sir in AoS, except as a special rule of some models.
Also, you can target characters any time you want with extreme ease, that's why they have good saves and lot of wounds.

 Rezyn wrote:

Tresson wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
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".

3.9" would be more accurate. It does say it needs to be within 4" after all.

You only get the 3 inch pile in if you successfully make it into 1" on the charge. If they follow the AoS wording, you can only move directly towards the closest enemy, which prevents you from just getting a full 3 inches of movement and surrounding the enemy. Now.. that's not to say they WILL follow that wording.. so who knows.

As much as the mechanics are following the AoS mechanics, there are numerous changes that they are improving upon that AoS was the lesson learned for.

Pretty sure AoS doesn't have the text "closest enemy" which is why a long charge can be sent around behind the unit and why people use the pile in to drag other units into assault.

 Ronin_eX 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?

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.

Stargrunt II used random movement when making quick advances (called Combat Movement). Rolled a die corresponding to your unit's speed and doubled the result.

A fair number of historicals games do it too. TooFat Lardies' Chain of Command (an excellent WW2 system) and Sharp Practice have diced movement, for example.

Like you said in the part I snipped out, randomized movement allows for some of the randomness and fog of war that get taken out of wargames because the tables have limited detail and the players have a top-down godlike view.

In real life, soldiers hesitate, they find unstable or difficult ground, etc.