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.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A Leman Russ moving 16"? That would be nice to have again.

I'd settle for usable Battlecannons...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A Leman Russ moving 16"? That would be nice to have again.

I'd settle for usable Battlecannons...

Don;t they calm them nova cannons in the article on weapons?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A Leman Russ moving 16"? That would be nice to have again.

I'd settle for usable Battlecannons...

Don;t they calm them nova cannons in the article on weapons?

Nova Cannons are one of the many armaments a Leman Russ can have.
Specifically I think it's the Leman Russ Eradicator?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A Leman Russ moving 16"? That would be nice to have again.

The movement range is the issue of the leman Russ? Hm... I would have assumed it was the completely inadequate shooting.

I said it would be nice to have. I didn't say it was the Leman Russes biggest problem or that it's essential.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.

A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.

Removing one of the last sources of gameplay depth in the movement phase would mean it's rubbish, yes. You should add actual depth, not remove the last tiny bits of it. The gameplay was already point and click simplistic but at least there were reasons for flanking manouvers - now it will only take simplifying the cover rules and you might just as well make it a card game.

 Kirasu wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A Leman Russ moving 16"? That would be nice to have again.

The movement range is the issue of the leman Russ? Hm... I would have assumed it was the completely inadequate shooting.

The fact that LR shooting is weak shows just how badly codex balance was screwed up last edition. Note that that is not the same as the core rules.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.

A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.

Removing one of the last sources of gameplay depth in the movement phase would mean it's rubbish, yes. You should add actual depth, not remove the last tiny bits of it. The gameplay was already point and click simplistic but at least there were reasons for flanking manouvers - now it will only take simplifying the cover rules and you might just as well make it a card game.

I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.

Hater gonna hate, man. I'd just quit trying.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 matphat wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.

As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.

I think the ability to bounce into more assaults and Initiative being gone will help Orks out quite a bit. I am skeptical, but I would love to see them be decent.

Adding the durability of Trukks to my list of improvements. It will take a bit of sustained firepower to pop a truck on turn 1, and then the unit inside of it. Going 2nd won't be the death knell it used to be.

 matphat wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.

Hater gonna hate, man. I'd just quit trying.

Ugh, there's not even a chance you were saying that ironically, is there? Lets try and keep the discourse a little above that, please?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 matphat wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.

As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.

I think the ability to bounce into more assaults and Initiative being gone will help Orks out quite a bit. I am skeptical, but I would love to see them be decent.

Adding the durability of Trukks to my list of improvements. It will take a bit of sustained firepower to pop a truck on turn 1, and then the unit inside of it. Going 2nd won't be the death knell it used to be.

If they can get across the board at least semi-reliably, a good sized unit of Boyz with a FC analogue, maybe some option to gain a rend CCW and striking first are going to be quite the handful.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Hater gonna hate, man. I'd just quit trying.

Internet tone. I have to remember. Shoulda dropped a /s to the end of that. Sorry. Yes, I was attempting to be ironic.

I feel like if we can see some more durability out of Trukks it will go a long way to making Orks a little more viable, but we are still talking max unit size of 10 unless Trukks manage to get bigger on the inside. I'm hopeful, but trying to stay realistic to the last three editions.

Cool, that's a relief!

 matphat wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Hater gonna hate, man. I'd just quit trying.

Internet tone. I have to remember. Shoulda dropped a /s to the end of that. Sorry. Yes, I was attempting to be ironic.

I feel like if we can see some more durability out of Trukks it will go a long way to making Orks a little more viable, but we are still talking max unit size of 10 unless Trukks manage to get bigger on the inside. I'm hopeful, but trying to stay realistic to the last three editions.

Maybe trukks get back their 2nd Edition "if you can stack 'em, you can transport 'em" rule?

 JimOnMars wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 matphat wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Tyranids and Orks players are probably looking at their armies and realizing they actually stand a chance without employing gimmicks. Hopefully other armies won't have to resort to gimmicks to remain viable.

As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.

I think the ability to bounce into more assaults and Initiative being gone will help Orks out quite a bit. I am skeptical, but I would love to see them be decent.

Adding the durability of Trukks to my list of improvements. It will take a bit of sustained firepower to pop a truck on turn 1, and then the unit inside of it. Going 2nd won't be the death knell it used to be.

As long as my Devastators can blow your stupid trukk up, I am all for it. I still want to be able to run stuff down with a Rhino as well.

ian wrote:
There is also a factor of people's skill level , if your a really good player you could play a less effective army and still win , if your always winning and your playing equal armies then you need to hamper your army or you will be that guy ,which is made so much worse if your a good player and a good army < this is the really problem with balance . I'm really glad they have kept in more randomness as it creates those moments that everybody cares about . In my experience when fighting close combat armies it's been a race against time to see if I could kill them before they got to me which has been a lot of fun ,if the new rules can make this feel like a close run thing I will be happy

Me being the CC guy used to love hurtling toward you in my truks and looted wagons not knowing weather or not I would make it, if I made it, it still did not mean that I would win it really depended on how well you had placed your guns, I found this to be the case in almost all games in 5th edition.
Over all it just felt balanced and I'm sure there are many people who will agree I even saw a poll about what edition was the best and 5th had 50% of the votes from all of the editions combined.

What is really interesting is the two weakest army's in 5th are now the 2 most powerful Eldar and tau, I honestly think they changed the meta to sell more models.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Maybe trukks get back their 2nd Edition "if you can stack 'em, you can transport 'em" rule?

I miss that one, we had someone pose all of his Orks like the monkeys from the 'Barrel of Monkeys' game so they could hang on better.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.

A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.

Removing one of the last sources of gameplay depth in the movement phase would mean it's rubbish, yes. You should add actual depth, not remove the last tiny bits of it. The gameplay was already point and click simplistic but at least there were reasons for flanking manouvers - now it will only take simplifying the cover rules and you might just as well make it a card game.

I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.

I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.

Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.

It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Forming and expressing that opinion when you know, categorically, that you're not in possession of all the information is just not a very smart thing to do.

Plumbumbarum wrote:


I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.

I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.

Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.

It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?

Then why are you in this thread?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Forming and expressing that opinion when you know, categorically, that you're not in possession of all the information is just not a very smart thing to do.

But I said "if"! And again, if that aspect of movement and positioning is removed, the edition will be rubbish, a huge step back etc. If.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.

I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.

Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.

It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?

Then why are you in this thread?

Why not? I spent years analysing the game and am interested in strategy games in general, especialy the topic of depth. What GW does with the ruleset is interesting no matter if I play it or not.

Also, maybe I want to reignite that spark? Not sure myself tbh. It is a terribly time consuming hobby.

And yes I'm out anyway. Wish you people that 8th turns out good and you have heaps of fun out of it.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Forming and expressing that opinion when you know, categorically, that you're not in possession of all the information is just not a very smart thing to do.

But I said "if"! And again, if that aspect of movement and positioning is removed, the edition will be rubbish, a huge step back etc. If.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.

I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.

Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.

It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?

Then why are you in this thread?

Why not? I spent years analysing the game and am interested in strategy games in general, especialy the topic of depth. What GW does with the ruleset is interesting no matter if I play it or not.

Also, maybe I want to reignite that spark? Not sure myself tbh. It is a terribly time consuming hobby.

And yes I'm out anyway. Wish you people that 8th turns out good and you have heaps of fun out of it.

Why do flanking maneuvers matter when there is virtually no other aspect of flanking in the game? Why does it matter so much to flank a model with an armor value when "similar" units can't be flanked. By that logic you should give everything a facing and be weaker in the sides/rear regardless of unit type.

In the current edition of 40k there is NO flanking either because no one uses garbage vehicles, instead all you see are monstrous creatures.

@Plumb...

I recommend 1page40k for a good rule set.
Also... I too took a year off. But if gave me more objectivity... not less

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
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?

And you missed his point. Balance was much better before(not perfect obviously since perfect is impossible). Just because GW has screwed it now doesn't mean it's not possible.

It's possible to have shock horror situation where both are viable. It's been done fairly decently before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

Fixed in stats at least so at best you can hope for bonus/penalty for shooting at different angle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
CC phase is great, you want shooting oriented go WWII. 40k is a place where melee is just as good as shooting, period.

A question now, sorry if that's mentioned in the thread, is vehicle toughness dependable on the angle you shoot at it (weaker back/ sides) or is it fixed? Because if it's the latter, the edition is rubbish.

Wow, arbitrary much? If this one thing isn't to my liking, then the whole thing is gak.

But the answer to your question is unknown at this time.

They said vehicles will have statlines like troops. So it's gonna be fixed.

Actually just because they have statline doesn't mean it has to be fixed. Actually there would be no game rule reason why you couldn't have easier time wounding SPACE MARINE shooting him from side but logically that doesn't make much sense as tactical marine's armour is much less dependant on angle of attack(now getting shot from multiple directions could have destabilizing effect but that's more for psychology than having weaker side armour). But for vehicles that's actually only sensible and quite possible if wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


A rule saying vehicles suffer -1T for attacks from the side or -2T to the rear or whatever doesn't invalidate them having the same statline as troops. It would just be a rule that you applied to vehicle keyword units.

...but would invalidate the simplification with a pile of exceptions (it's a 12-page ruleset remember!). Banking on one statline, apart from special vehicles (perhaps Russ has front bonus), but most being fixed.

Vehicle armour facings weren't really part of rulebook before either. That 12 pages won't cover unit datasheets where vehicle facings would logically be anyway as those are VERY much vehicle specific rather than universal rule(some vehicles have stronger side armour related to front armour than others. Extreme case being land raider where they are equal while chimera has very much weaker side than front).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kirasu wrote:
Why do flanking maneuvers matter when there is virtually no other aspect of flanking in the game? Why does it matter so much to flank a model with an armor value when "similar" units can't be flanked. By that logic you should give everything a facing and be weaker in the sides/rear regardless of unit type.

In the current edition of 40k there is NO flanking either because no one uses garbage vehicles, instead all you see are monstrous creatures.

Except infantry etc don't really have weaker side armour like vehicles have...

And no facing leads to the stupid visualities like side moving predators etc.

Except infantry etc don't really have weaker side armour like vehicles have...

And no facing leads to the stupid visualities like side moving predators etc.

Is that so? What about the stupid visual of monstrous creatures walking backwards? or soldiers with shields having them facing the wrong way? There are MANY examples of non-vehicle units which should also have weaker flanks to attack as to think that infantry don't have stronger armor in certain areas is a bit silly. You armor the area you most anticipate the bulk of an attack to come from.

I rather have faster gameplay than deal with ideas of "correct visuals" when the person clearly doesn't care about consistency, ONLY what they consider "correct"

Example 1: Tervigon
Weaker front or rear armor you think?



Example 2: Space Marine Bikes
Seems to me the front of the bike would protect the rider compared to the rear or side.

Example 3: Bullgryns
Is it your belief that the placement of these shields offers the same protection from the rear?

The point of this is to illustrate that armor values are NOT more tactical nor do facings make any sense if you apply them to only vehicles. Why is a Riptide a MC but a dreadnought isn't and thus the dreadnought has a supposed weakspot?

The drastic swings between "Shooty armies are all powerful, burn the assault troops" to " Guns are done! Assault is broken!" as information is slowly revealed is hilarious. (If a little pathetic)

2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.

The whole game is an abstract simulation of armed conflict. (which is meant to be happening in real time) The utterly absurd comments along the lines of "It just makes no sense that lumbering unit X is able to achieve a charge of 12" when speedy gonzales unit Y only makes it 2" are laughable. Everything that is happening is meant to be happening simultaneously within the chaos of a battlefield. It makes perfect sense.

 Hollow wrote:


2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.

So why is there nothing to simulate this fog for weapons firing clear across the battlefield? But only for situations where things are literally close enough to touch each other?

The whole game is an abstract simulation of armed conflict. (which is meant to be happening in real time) The utterly absurd comments along the lines of "It just makes no sense that lumbering unit X is able to achieve a charge of 12" when speedy gonzales unit Y only makes it 2" are laughable. Everything that is happening is meant to be happening simultaneously within the chaos of a battlefield. It makes perfect sense.

No the whole game is a game and all paths to victory should be roughly equivalent. By putting a layer of random in for Assault that Shooting can simply bypass that, as it stands, isn't the case.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No the whole game is a game and all paths to victory should be roughly equivalent. By putting a layer of random in for Assault that Shooting can simply bypass that, as it stands, isn't the case.

So you think assault is overpowered now that you want to nerf it by giving them some fixed assault range? You do realize that helps shooty armies more than assault right? Shooty armies can easily skirt around with 100% impunity while pouring fire. Assault units goes from having to endure even more shooting before finally manage to corner enemy. Assumign they haven't been blow off by then.

Now at least shooty units either have to choose do they want to maximize firepower or risk getting into combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kirasu wrote:

Except infantry etc don't really have weaker side armour like vehicles have...

And no facing leads to the stupid visualities like side moving predators etc.

Is that so? What about the stupid visual of monstrous creatures walking backwards? or soldiers with shields having them facing the wrong way? There are MANY examples of non-vehicle units which should also have weaker flanks to attack as to think that infantry don't have stronger armor in certain areas is a bit silly. You armor the area you most anticipate the bulk of an attack to come from.

Shields are bit faster to move around than turning vehicle around so there abstraction works. And monstorous creatures could benefit from same rule but more crucially there's less issue with monstorous creatures moving differently as they don't really gain anything from pointing where-ever. With vehicles they gain a LOT by moving up sideways so that's what you will see. With monsters due to nature of them being on more or less round bases(or even round bases) it's neutral. With vehicles you WILL see players moving them side by side as only idiots or newbies won't do that.

With monsters models don't encourage that. With vehicles it becomes mandatory.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:


2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.

So why is there nothing to simulate this fog for weapons firing clear across the battlefield? But only for situations where things are literally close enough to touch each other?

There is. It's called rolling to hit, rolling to would and rolling to save. As well as cover rules and previous actions affecting whether or not unit can shoot. Or should all variation be purely measurement based.

tneva82 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No the whole game is a game and all paths to victory should be roughly equivalent. By putting a layer of random in for Assault that Shooting can simply bypass that, as it stands, isn't the case.

So you think assault is overpowered now that you want to nerf it by giving them some fixed assault range? You do realize that helps shooty armies more than assault right? Shooty armies can easily skirt around with 100% impunity while pouring fire. Assault units goes from having to endure even more shooting before finally manage to corner enemy. Assumign they haven't been blow off by then.

Now at least shooty units either have to choose do they want to maximize firepower or risk getting into combat.

No, I want a game where I lose based on my bad decisions or win based on making good ones. Not one where I experience the wrong end of a run of dice rolls at the wrong moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:


2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.

So why is there nothing to simulate this fog for weapons firing clear across the battlefield? But only for situations where things are literally close enough to touch each other?

There is. It's called rolling to hit, rolling to would and rolling to save. As well as cover rules and previous actions affecting if a unit can shoot or not.

Oh, so Assault doesn't have to do any of those things now?!!!11!

Makes much more sense.

Go go random charges!