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.

Ah, Spoletta, that article. That actually isn't written by GW originally, but is a fan-made site that got "invited" in. Also, looking at that, I'm not sure where you get that unit cohesion isn't still required from that article. (The Dragon Nobles are individual models, not a single unit of 2 models.)

 kronk wrote:

 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.

Me likey!

Now we need to know what rules (old fleet?) can allow charges after advancing... ie, Ork Waaghs, Harlequins, etc...

 rollawaythestone wrote:
You forgot that you now get an extra 1" to every charge, making successful charges significantly more likely.

IF you refer to the within 1" rather than b2b you realize that shooty army will simply be 1" further behind so where before it was 7" to b2b now it's 8" to b2b so you still need 7" to get in...

That is less of a buff in actual charge distance you need to roll and more of help for board control as you force enemy to keep further away.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 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.

Lets not try and being realism into the debate, irrespective of scale, a unit with 6" move and 24" range can threaten a 60" bubble on a 72"x48" table. The same unit with melee weapons can threaten a 36" bubble 1/36 turns.

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.

This has not been my experience.

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!).

Don't care. If you're going to develop a concept in a game, there's a responsibility on the developer to implement it in a manner that allows fair use of that concept. It can't be a trap, especially when that trap can cause a customer to invest hundreds of pounds and hours into the product.

 rollawaythestone wrote:


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.

That's not how AoS works. Every unit in combat will strike. It's the controlling player who picks a unit first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

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.

No cover?
No transports?
No infiltrate?
No drop pods?
No bikes or jetpacks?
No shooting back?

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.

We are in agreement then! Shooting and CC are now equal!

Daedalus81 wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:


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.

That's not how AoS works. Every unit in combat will strike. It's the controlling player who picks a unit first.

He's referring to opponent being able to decide if you can strike in his turn by whether _he simply steps out of combat_.

You can't strike enemy at his turn if enemy simply decides to leave and let you be shot by his friends now can you?

Youn wrote:
Some randomness to charges has to be in the game. I wish they would have gone with M+1d6 but they didn't.

If you always make it M*2 or M and you have pre-measurement in the game. You will have a recipe for making shooting armies way to powerful. Image Tau with a line of firewarriors in front of a pile of Riptides behind them. They can let you get close, pre-measure the distance to a charge. Back up to 1.5" further then you can charge. Shoot you, let you move and back up again, rinse and repeat for a game.

That works for me. It would mean that simply charging straight across the board becomes the poor strategy that it always should have been... Assault armies would need to outflank, or use faster units to tie up enemy units while the slower units get into range.

And, of course, there's only so far that a unit can keep backing up before they run out of board.

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

Would that it were so. I'm sure they all have "Units within X gain Y" powers. Hopefully they will be well thought out and clearly written. I also hope most of their powers are "MODEL" and not "Unit" based, or say "Units with at least half their models within 6" or the like. I aways hate the bizarre conga line to get one model within range of the buff effect.

Personally I'm fine with both random charge distances AND exploding vehicles. It seems a bit odd to love one but not the other. I was decent player back in the day, but never so intense that it annoyed me that the game could turn on a few critical die rolls. You played the odds as best you could - that was part of feeling like a general and the drama of the combat. It made games more exciting. Now the plucky meltagunner will won't stop the landraider unless it was already almost dead. Ok it makes the game more like chess, but no game will ever be as good at being chess as chess is.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But this doesn't address why, in 40K, none of this uncertainty applies to shooting.

See my post for a possible reason why charging would be randomized but shooting not.

But beyond that, this is a goalpost shift. You simply asked if any other systems did this. They do. Several also have a CnC system where even passing an order to a unit may not occur. Mechanics to represent your troops not being completely reliable are rife throughout the industry and where and when that occurs is up tot he designer. Though with all that said, few games try for random weapon ranges, but random movement is definitely a thing. This isn't GW doing something unique and (if you want to read the rest of my post) it has its merits in representing the fog of war where pure use of static values does not.

Once again, it isn't strictly an issue about random, so much as random being unevenly applied to the two halves of the game.

Why is it important for it to be evenly applied? If you want your mechanics to evoke a certain feel then slight differences in how things are resolved allows you to do that. But I've already gone over why a purely static movement can lead to issues in a game where you can have wildly different movement values between profiles. Either way, I've said my piece and it would probably be best if a separate thread got opened up for the charge distance debate. Wouldn't want another thread to get closed because it simply devolved in to a single-issue debate with no end and the two sides going round-and-round. Ideally the signal-to-noise ratio in the news thread stays more toward the signal end.

So I apologize for being part of the derailing posse. This thread's hard enough to keep abreast of without a bunch of grogs arguing about mechanics and how they should/shouldn't be done.

 Valander wrote:
Ah, Spoletta, that article. That actually isn't written by GW originally, but is a fan-made site that got "invited" in. Also, looking at that, I'm not sure where you get that unit cohesion isn't still required from that article. (The Dragon Nobles are individual models, not a single unit of 2 models.)

My bad, for some reason i read dragon blades instead of dragon nobles.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
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!).

Best joke post I've ever read. I mean, I'm assuming it's a joke, on the grounds that 40k might as well not have an assault phase in half the games I've ever played. I've certainly never heard anyone call it "disproportionately powerful" without using near-lethal levels of sarcasm.

Eyjio wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
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!).

Best joke post I've ever read. I mean, I'm assuming it's a joke, on the grounds that 40k might as well not have an assault phase in half the games I've ever played. I've certainly never heard anyone call it "disproportionately powerful" without using near-lethal levels of sarcasm.

He is speaking in terms of realism i suppose.
When you have cannons that make mountains crumble, close combat does indeed look out of place.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Some FB comments already asked if P. Fists and T. hammers are unwieldy, and GW says they will reveal soon for using such "cumbersome heavy" weapons. So there must still be some sort of penalty.

Perhaps just a blanket rule like, enemy models in b2b always attack first unless wielding the same (unwieldy) type, then hits are simultaneous.

Thanks, quioted for OP

Spoletta wrote:

He is speaking in terms of realism i suppose.
When you have cannons that make mountains crumble, close combat does indeed look out of place.

Unless you also happen to have giant monsters that can knock buildings over as they chase you, or hammers that can flip tanks end over end.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 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!).

I'm not sure what edition you've been playing but it has been documented and commented on quite extensively how close combat was crippled in 6th and 7th edition. The only units worth anything have re-rerollable invulnerable saves, multiple wounds and ignore cover when moving with everything else being trash.

Q: seems to be implied you can put multiple units in a single transport finally.. Is there any sign of being able to put a unit in multiple transports (which presumably then have to stay pretty close)?

e.g. unit of 20 marines split between two Rhinos?

leopard wrote:
Q: seems to be implied you can put multiple units in a single transport finally.. Is there any sign of being able to put a unit in multiple transports (which presumably then have to stay pretty close)?

e.g. unit of 20 marines split between two Rhinos?

This is something I hoped would be possible. Imagine taking a big IG infantry mob and putting into multiple chimeras. You get the best of both worlds (mech and gunline) and it would be fluffy as hell.

 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.

Also adding

Eyjio wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
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!).

Best joke post I've ever read. I mean, I'm assuming it's a joke, on the grounds that 40k might as well not have an assault phase in half the games I've ever played. I've certainly never heard anyone call it "disproportionately powerful" without using near-lethal levels of sarcasm.

I'm guessing you're a younger player.

Shooting was so worthless in 3rd Edition, for example, that it created entirely new styles of play (none of which were much fun).

Besides, all I said was that it was disproportionately powerful, not overpowered. As in close combat has always been way more effective than it should be, while shooting has always been way less powerful than it should be. If there were times when close combat was "disadvantaged" that only means that close combat was less disproportionately powerful than in other editions.

40K's biggest stumbling point across the 3+ Editions has been trying to balance close combat armies against shooting armies. And that's like trying to balance 15th century French knights against the WW2 Wermacht, lol. Close combat should have always been the domain of specialist troops and options of last resort. Creating a game that incentivized people to bring entire armies of close combat troops was destined to create a flip-flopping balance of power because you're basically trying to create a functional ruleset for radically different styles of play.

Wording of the second part is interesting. I wonder if we might see things like spear-type weapons getting a longer reach.

 Robin5t wrote:
Wording of the second part is interesting. I wonder if we might see things like spear-type weapons getting a longer reach.

We already have the Custodian Guard with guardian spears which I imagine will get a longer reach.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
As in close combat has always been way more effective than it should be, while shooting has always been way less powerful than it should be.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Personally I'd prefer shooting and melee to be roughly equally effective approaches, and by reading these forums I can conclude that I'm not alone with this view. It doesn't matter that it is not 'realistic', 40K is space fantasy, not hard scifi. Chainswords are cool.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Shooting was so worthless in 3rd Edition, for example, that it created entirely new styles of play (none of which were much fun).

Besides, all I said was that it was disproportionately powerful, not overpowered. As in close combat has always been way more effective than it should be, while shooting has always been way less powerful than it should be. If there were times when close combat was "disadvantaged" that only means that close combat was less disproportionately powerful than in other editions.

40K's biggest stumbling point across the 3+ Editions has been trying to balance close combat armies against shooting armies. And that's like trying to balance 15th century French knights against the WW2 Wermacht, lol. Close combat should have always been the domain of specialist troops and options of last resort. Creating a game that incentivized people to bring entire armies of close combat troops was destined to create a flip-flopping balance of power because you're basically trying to create a functional ruleset for radically different styles of play.

This is not true at all, close combat was decent in previous editions, and even tipped the scales at some points, but never have we been where we are now but with the sides switched. It was NEVER at a point where it was impossible to make a pure shooting army that could have a reasonable chance at winning games.

I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.

ERJAK wrote:
I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.

the same can be said about every phase except movement and deployment; but we didn't sit down to play chess, we wanted a wargame; and we chose the one that has deptictions of super human demigods strangling dragons with their bare hands....

ERJAK wrote:
I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.

You mean it was dull (it wasn't) . This is the new activation method... I'm looking forward to it quite a bit... maybe reading news before talking about it would be a better idea

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

If they're going the AoS character route though they'll have an aura that they can give out to units in a certain distance, can be anything from +1 save to extra attacks, rend or re-rolls.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But this doesn't address why, in 40K, none of this uncertainty applies to shooting.

See my post for a possible reason why charging would be randomized but shooting not.

But beyond that, this is a goalpost shift.

Not in the least, I asked a question, received an answer, followed up on the information provided. That's kinda how discussions work when one party is asking for information.

Once again, it isn't strictly an issue about random, so much as random being unevenly applied to the two halves of the game.

Why is it important for it to be evenly applied?

Because if two methods of casualty removal are presented to a new player, which is a key element to winning a game, and they choose to collect an army that specializes in the method which is, to all intents and purposes, a trap, if it's ineherently notably less efficient, then that's no good for retaining new players.

If one method is inherently notably less efficient than the other, then that also reduces diversity at the competitive end, which could be reasonably termed the opposite end of the spectrum, and less variety makes for a stale play environment, and that makes for bored players, and bored players go looking for more interesting games.

Then you have the guys who aren't new, but aren't bothered enough to rebuy new armies to stay at the top end of the curve either. They'll just be further disillusioned that they've got another update that's done nothing to redress the issues that have plagued their army (which they probably have great affection for and loyalty towards) since time immemorial. Ultimately these players will come to a point where they either shelve their army and stop playing, or move on to other games.

All in all, if there's two chief ways of causing casualties in the game, it's important for a healthy game to have them both equally strong.

I'm not condemning the rules yet, to lose one's gak based on half a picture (if that) would be stupid, but I have long advocated for more agency and less random in the game, and totally random charges is a disappointment.

 davou wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Shooting was so worthless in 3rd Edition, for example, that it created entirely new styles of play (none of which were much fun).

Besides, all I said was that it was disproportionately powerful, not overpowered. As in close combat has always been way more effective than it should be, while shooting has always been way less powerful than it should be. If there were times when close combat was "disadvantaged" that only means that close combat was less disproportionately powerful than in other editions.

40K's biggest stumbling point across the 3+ Editions has been trying to balance close combat armies against shooting armies. And that's like trying to balance 15th century French knights against the WW2 Wermacht, lol. Close combat should have always been the domain of specialist troops and options of last resort. Creating a game that incentivized people to bring entire armies of close combat troops was destined to create a flip-flopping balance of power because you're basically trying to create a functional ruleset for radically different styles of play.

This is not true at all, close combat was decent in previous editions, and even tipped the scales at some points, but never have we been where we are now but with the sides switched. It was NEVER at a point where it was impossible to make a pure shooting army that could have a reasonable chance at winning games.

I clearly said this kind of ruleset was "destined to create a flip-flopping balance of power"

And you replied :

"This is not true at all, close combat was decent in previous editions, and even tipped the scales at some points"


<taps microphone> Is this thing on?

It was NEVER at a point where it was impossible to make a pure shooting army that could have a reasonable chance at winning games.

Well, I mean, first, I didn't say that and I'm really curious as to how you thought it was implied, lol.

ERJAK wrote:
I don't get why so many people are so attached to melee anyway in 40k, it's SO dull. I mean people complain about the igougo system for having one player do nothing while the other player does everything; close combat is a phase of the game where NEITHER player does anything. It's totally fire and forget once charges are done, the only thing even approaching tactics involved is 'declare challenge y/n' from that point on it's just watching a really boring movie while throwing dice at a table.

But that's like, your opinion, man

I love getting in to close combat, and cutting swathes through the enemy. I can't help what I enjoy