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.

 Valander wrote:
It doesn't say "straight line," no, and that wasn't implied. But it does say "towards closest enemy model," which means when you're done with the Pile In move that model has to be closer than when it started. So, the videos don't contradict that, so, please, continue.

It all depends on how models can be moved in the initial charge. If they can fan out, it should be easy to pile-in to other units. If that have to more directly toward the target unit, it will take some creative conga-lining (like before) to make it happen.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they remove unit limits in transports and just make it a size limit instead I'll be over the moon. Multiple units in one transport should be possible.

In AoS it is possible and you can disembark one without the other.

Requizen wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
The pile in rules are all well and good for horde armies (and I certainly do not begrudge them that), but what about small, elite assault armies? They don't have the model count to pile in on multiple units at once, especially not after factoring in losses to overwatch.

Elite combat units just won't get to tie up multiple units that easily. Do you really expect 5 Vanguard Vets to operate exactly the same as 30 Hormagaunts? The former will have better weapons and will tear through tougher targets better, the latter will swarm multiple units and bog them down in bodies. They don't need to have the same strengths.

No, and I wouldn't expect them to operate the same way at all - but the point had to be made that for all people are saying this is a 'big buff to assault armies', it's only a buff to one particular type of assault army.

For some of us, however, we can't handily lock several enemy units up at once, so the one we're fighting can still simply disengage the next turn while their mates blow us away with impunity.

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.

GW have explicitly stated that "within x"" means base-to-base, so no.

From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:Make it 100%... models cannot advance and charge. unless they have some rule giving them an exception to that.

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:There is a standard 1" range of weapons, but with the 3" pile in before you attack, just about every model should be able to fight.

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:Make it 100%... models cannot advance and charge. unless they have some rule giving them an exception to that.

nooooooooooooooooooooooo ok.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they remove unit limits in transports and just make it a size limit instead I'll be over the moon. Multiple units in one transport should be possible.

It is in AOS - you can even overload the vehicle Tank riders anyone....

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Valander wrote:
It doesn't say "straight line," no, and that wasn't implied. But it does say "towards closest enemy model," which means when you're done with the Pile In move that model has to be closer than when it started. So, the videos don't contradict that, so, please, continue.

It all depends on how models can be moved in the initial charge. If they can fan out, it should be easy to pile-in to other units. If that have to more directly toward the target unit, it will take some creative conga-lining (like before) to make it happen.

if it's anything like in AoS (and I see no reason it won't be at this point, but of course we don't have final wording), yeah you can fan out. For a charge to be successful in AoS, the first model you move has to end within 1/2" of a model in the declared unit (looks like this will be 1" for 40k), and after that you can move models however you want so long as you maintain coherency (which is 1"), and nobody's within 3" of a unit other than the one that was charged.

It'll be curious to see how the "can't charge a unit you didn't declare on" and piling in works out; my guess is you'll resolve the declared charges first, even if that means doing a portion of a unit, then go through non-charged combats in the alternating sequence. Remains to be seen though.

 Robin5t wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
The pile in rules are all well and good for horde armies (and I certainly do not begrudge them that), but what about small, elite assault armies? They don't have the model count to pile in on multiple units at once, especially not after factoring in losses to overwatch.

Elite combat units just won't get to tie up multiple units that easily. Do you really expect 5 Vanguard Vets to operate exactly the same as 30 Hormagaunts? The former will have better weapons and will tear through tougher targets better, the latter will swarm multiple units and bog them down in bodies. They don't need to have the same strengths.

No, and I wouldn't expect them to operate the same way at all - but the point had to be made that for all people are saying this is a 'big buff to assault armies', it's only a buff to one particular type of assault army.

For some of us, however, we can't handily lock several enemy units up at once, so the one we're fighting can still simply disengage the next turn while their mates blow us away with impunity.

There are 2 huge differences for elite armies actually:

1) Transport got really hard to take down and you can assault from those.
2) 3+ armor can no longer be negated (maybe melta), and in cover you have a 2+ against light weapons.

And probably 3) You don't remove casualties from the front.

Doesn't look so bad.

I think he's a DE player, so neither numerous or tanky.

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:Make it 100%... models cannot advance and charge. unless they have some rule giving them an exception to that.

So we can't (normally) advance (new run, in the movement phase) and charge.

Perhaps some nids can. Maybe berzerkers. I can live with that. Still need to see all the rules!

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
ICs no longer joining units does put a dampener on the silly units where multiple ICs synergize out the wazoo I guess.

Do we have full confirmation that ICs can't join units?

You'll have to dig through Pete Foley's tweets but it was definitely there in one of his tweet responses early after the initial 8th Edition announcement. I remember seeing it myself as well as multiple screencaps.

Same with the statements on the Warhammer 40.000 facebook page, they are responses to comments made to posts about the individual rule previews, so you'll have to do some digging.

I follow Pete on Twitter. No such thing was ever said.

 kronk wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:Make it 100%... models cannot advance and charge. unless they have some rule giving them an exception to that.

So we can't (normally) advance (new run, in the movement phase) and charge.

Perhaps some nids can. Maybe berzerkers. I can live with that. Still need to see all the rules!

Maybe Fleet does what it was always meant to do now (again?)

 Robin5t wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
The pile in rules are all well and good for horde armies (and I certainly do not begrudge them that), but what about small, elite assault armies? They don't have the model count to pile in on multiple units at once, especially not after factoring in losses to overwatch.

Elite combat units just won't get to tie up multiple units that easily. Do you really expect 5 Vanguard Vets to operate exactly the same as 30 Hormagaunts? The former will have better weapons and will tear through tougher targets better, the latter will swarm multiple units and bog them down in bodies. They don't need to have the same strengths.

No, and I wouldn't expect them to operate the same way at all - but the point had to be made that for all people are saying this is a 'big buff to assault armies', it's only a buff to one particular type of assault army.

For some of us, however, we can't handily lock several enemy units up at once, so the one we're fighting can still simply disengage the next turn while their mates blow us away with impunity.

If you charged something that can step back and allow your enemy to shoot you, then you charged something that if you wiped out in one turn will again allow the enemy to shoot you, which means you should not have charged that thing in the first place. You aren't playing with one unit against your opponent's two units no matter how many times this argument comes up. You are playing your army against their army.

If you charged something and they are able to step back and let another shooty unit unload on you, you either knew ahead of time this would be the outcome and prepared for it, or you got outplayed.

 Valander wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Valander wrote:
It doesn't say "straight line," no, and that wasn't implied. But it does say "towards closest enemy model," which means when you're done with the Pile In move that model has to be closer than when it started. So, the videos don't contradict that, so, please, continue.

It all depends on how models can be moved in the initial charge. If they can fan out, it should be easy to pile-in to other units. If that have to more directly toward the target unit, it will take some creative conga-lining (like before) to make it happen.

if it's anything like in AoS (and I see no reason it won't be at this point, but of course we don't have final wording), yeah you can fan out. For a charge to be successful in AoS, the first model you move has to end within 1/2" of a model in the declared unit (looks like this will be 1" for 40k), and after that you can move models however you want so long as you maintain coherency (which is 1"), and nobody's within 3" of a unit other than the one that was charged.

It'll be curious to see how the "can't charge a unit you didn't declare on" and piling in works out; my guess is you'll resolve the declared charges first, even if that means doing a portion of a unit, then go through non-charged combats in the alternating sequence. Remains to be seen though.

Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.

 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 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.

Of course you realize there is no such thing as ideal circumstance in a battlefield...

And fixed charge ranges with premeasuring would actually HELP shooty army. Yes that's right. Flat 6" charge range like in 5th ed would be huge DEBUFF to the assault armies. Do you really hate assault armies so much you need to kick them in the teeth?

Spoletta wrote:

Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.

Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!

Spoletta wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they remove unit limits in transports and just make it a size limit instead I'll be over the moon. Multiple units in one transport should be possible.

In AoS it is possible and you can disembark one without the other.

Yeah it's great isn't it?

Being able to share transports will cut down on the cost.

 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.

Does knowing whether unit even moves count? I know non-GW games where you aren't even quaranteed you move when you want. Funny that. Soldiers not following orders due to confusion, fear etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:
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

I have lost games due to tank missing with it's gun.

(Even better. I have lost game because own tank blew out my own super heavy! Pretty impressive to accidentally hit super heavy tank out of all things )

kronk wrote: Still need to see all the rules!

I think we should attach this sentence to the end of every post. A lot of the concerns we've seen so far could easily be mitigated or outright eliminated with unit rules.

Valander wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.

Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!

I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Maybe Fleet does what it was always meant to do now (again?)

That will be interesting!

Now who gets New Fleet?

 kronk wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Maybe Fleet does what it was always meant to do now (again?)

That will be interesting!

Now who gets New Fleet?

Given recent information suggesting there's still some old GW lurking inside new GW, Imma going to say Assault Centurions will have it, but feth you Bezerkers!

 EnTyme wrote:

kronk wrote: Still need to see all the rules!

I think we should attach this sentence to the end of every post. A lot of the concerns we've seen so far could easily be mitigated or outright eliminated with unit rules.

Valander wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.

Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!

I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.

Read this https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/02/14/tactical-toolbox-charging/

 EnTyme wrote:

Valander wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.

Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!

I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.

I thought so, too, but Spoletta's comment made me doubt, since GW apparently gave an example that shows otherwise. However, I see this in the core rules, which makes me doubt my doubt:

A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a single group of models, with all models within 1" of at least one other model from their unit.

I'd assume a Pile In Move is, well, "any sort of move".

Case of GW not knowing their own rules in videos or something? (I'm sure that's never happened. )

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:Make it 100%... models cannot advance and charge. unless they have some rule giving them an exception to that.

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:There is a standard 1" range of weapons, but with the 3" pile in before you attack, just about every model should be able to fight.

Is 8th edition 'advance' the same as running in previous editions?

EDIT: read further in the thread and it answers my questions... don't mind me.

 EnTyme wrote:

kronk wrote: Still need to see all the rules!

I think we should attach this sentence to the end of every post. A lot of the concerns we've seen so far could easily be mitigated or outright eliminated with unit rules.

Valander wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.

Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!

I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.

You do have you end a charge in coherency. You can't break coherency on purpose.

"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a single group of models, with all models within 1” of at least one other model from their unit"

There is nothing in the charge rules that makes charges exempt from the general rule.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 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.

But this doesn't address why, in 40K, none of this uncertainty applies to shooting.

Shooting is already unbelievably gimped in wargames as it is. At 24 inches, it reduces the effective range of 28mm models to roughly 50 meters to scale, and means the average individual with a rifle can take 3-4 shots at a target moving at a normal speed, 2-3 for units running at them. There was no true overwatch mechanic after 2nd Edition, meaning shooting units couldn't place themselves for effective defensive fire. There is definitely no merit to the idea that close combat is being disproportionately disadvantaged by this edition. Close combat has been disproportionately powerful for the last 18 years, lol. Warhammer 40K has gone to great lengths to ensure shooting sucked enough for troops to have a chance to hit people with their energized sticks.

And part of this is the fault of 3rd Edition (whose basic mechanics polluted the game through 7th Edition) which introduced the concept of Close Combat Armies (as opposed to 2nd Edition where pretty much everybody could shoot. Orks with BS3! Termagants with useful weapons!).

tneva82 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.

Does knowing whether unit even moves count? I know non-GW games where you aren't even quaranteed you move when you want. Funny that. Soldiers not following orders due to confusion, fear etc.

Do those same soldiers who don't follow orders due to fear and confusion suddenly become emotionless machines, performing flawlessly, if instructed to do something else?

 whembly wrote:

Is 8th edition 'advance' the same as running in previous editions?

Yes. Only, it's done in the movement phase.

Move: move your movement distance. Shoot following shooting rules.
Advance: move your movement distance + 1d6". No shooting.

Spoletta wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

kronk wrote: Still need to see all the rules!

I think we should attach this sentence to the end of every post. A lot of the concerns we've seen so far could easily be mitigated or outright eliminated with unit rules.

Valander wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Even better actually, you don't need to maintain coherency when charging. That said, if you are out of coherency you can't pile in probably (you would have to regain coherency with a 3" move while getting nearer to the enemy).
There is an example made by GW where 2 dragonblades split the unit during the charge to screw a bloodletter formation.

Oh man, I totally thought you still had to maintain coherency, but looks like you're right!

I'm fairly certain you have to end your charge in coherency. If not, I need to rethink how I've been playing my Bloodbound.

Read this https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/02/14/tactical-toolbox-charging/

You've misunderstood the article. A Dragon Noble is a character, those two Dragon Nobles sandwiching an enemy unit are two separate units, not one unit splitting up. You can't charge without maintaining coherency.