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.

 kodos wrote:

 davou wrote:

Thats two metalguns that can fire at someone, two grenades that can be thrown, a lazcannon that can be fired downrange and te remaining bolters firing at two seperate squads.
.

it is per model not weapon group, a tac squad can fire at 10 different targets if you want to

Yeah but would you want to?

Daedalus81 wrote:

The rules will not work that way. You pick your targets, decide how to split, and then resolve the shooting. There is no, "ok is he dead? no. Then I'll shoot one more".

never said that it work different, and this is why some people will take a lot of time before a unit shoots
as you need to say which model takes which target you should calculate how to get the most out of it, instead of just shoot model by model and see what happens

Hmmm. Devastators became more useful since they can blast away at multiple things. Less chance for overkill on something. I hope Imperial Fists get a nice bonus with them (since armor penetration isn't a thing anymore, perhaps they will reroll to wound?).

If they don't give IF a bonus to firing bolt weapons (+1 to hit?), I will probably add a heavy weapon into each of my Sternguard Squads. I am leaning Multi-Melta in the Combi-Melta Squad and Grav Cannon in the Combi-Grav Squad. I run smaller Tactical Squads so I won't be adding a heavy there.

Overall, a nice update. The chart is fairly easy to memorize. Split fire is going to be fun.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Hmmm. Devastators became more useful since they can blast away at multiple things. Less chance for overkill on something.

Less chance for overkill, but also more chance of not killing your target because you judged your shots wrong. If you have to select targets and who's shooting at what, before shooting, you have the chance of not taking down your targets. There is room here for a good general to judge appropriate targets as well as amount of firepower required.

ERJAK wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 davou wrote:

Thats two metalguns that can fire at someone, two grenades that can be thrown, a lazcannon that can be fired downrange and te remaining bolters firing at two seperate squads.
.

it is per model not weapon group, a tac squad can fire at 10 different targets if you want to

Yeah but would you want to?

depends
I know players who take a lot of time to decide how to place 5 models in cover, and such players will take minutes to decide if he want to shoot 5 different targets or just 1.
played against people who needed 30 minutes to say how to split the fire of his sturmsurge
and now this for all of his units....

Whoa, that new to-wound chart really shakes things up! When they said the stats were no longer capped to ten, I suspected that something like this might be coming. I tentatively like it. Combined with the multi-wounds, I think it might work well.

This makes me think that these new übermarines might get S and T of 5, as with this new chart it would not be gamebreakingly powerful.

ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.

ERJAK wrote:
ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.

Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.

I would guess that the one unit per transport thing is going away.

 kodos wrote:

 davou wrote:

Thats two metalguns that can fire at someone, two grenades that can be thrown, a lazcannon that can be fired downrange and te remaining bolters firing at two seperate squads.
.

it is per model not weapon group, a tac squad can fire at 10 different targets if you want to

Thats true, but why would you? I was just pointing out that its not just the heavy weapon that benefits from the split.

Did anyone else notice GW say "join us" in reference to the characters article tomorrow . That has to be intentionally, those cheeky little devils

If they go with the rules that the dwarves have for Embark and Disembark. Then characters are fine for hitching rides.

The Embark rule is upto 10 models with the KEYWORD may embark.

So, assuming that says ASARTES on both the tactical squad and the librarian. Then if you have a 5 man squad and a librarian they both can get in the same vehicle as they don't exceed it's 10 man limit.

They aren't considered joined as a squad just riding in the same vehicle.

This brings us back to the question of can a character join a squad in 40k? And if not, can they be shot at easily?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.

Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.

This would be a pretty big oversight. It would be nice to have rules that let you take a foot-slogger character again without them being utterly useless!

I imagine that the split fire mechanic will be identical to Age Of Sigmar. For every unit, pick your targets, fully resolve all of your allocated attacks against one unit, then move on to the next target until all attacks against all targets are fully resolved. And multiple attack weapons can split their attacks against multiple targets too. It sounds more complicated than it is in practice believe me.

I'm now seriously starting to consider an IG armored company made up of classic bolter boat russes. Which will presumably be actually usable now.

Is there anything like the flamer in AoS?

Can you roll 1d6 to find out the number of hits getting a 5. Allocated 3 to unit 1 and 2 to unit 2?
Or would you have to say.. I am firing half (Round up) at unit 1 and the Other half (round down) at unit 2. Then roll the dice and determine the number of shots.

Looking at this from the point of view of a character standing in the middle of a squad. With half rounded up going to character and other half rounded down going to squad.

 Jambles wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.

Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.

This would be a pretty big oversight. It would be nice to have rules that let you take a foot-slogger character again without them being utterly useless!

Especially now that I have to take two HQs in order to run a Battalion Detachment. Jokes on them though, one of my HQs IS the Transport that the other HQ is going to ride in.

In other news, the Skitarii Ranger Arquebus just became a bit better since the squad can shoot at other stuff while they shoot at a tank.

Pistols on Sergeants might be a bit better now since their short range won't mess up the rest of the squad.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:

As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.

If there ever was a reason for removing armor facings, AV and hull points, there it is.

Selective "realism" is great when only one punching bag unit type suffers from all the resulting drawbacks, I guess.
It's particularly amazing when Dreadknights and Riptides are somehow MCs and not vehicles when the Penitent Engine and the Dreadnought are.

Agreed, but this was not so much a problem of the ruleset, but idiotic Codex design. Dreadknight, Riptide and Wraithknight should have been Walkers from the start, end of story. They could have been say AV12 all around Walkers, to remove facing issue from a model which doesn't have a clear visual facing, but vehicles nevertheless. People always harped how "MC's are overpowered" but hardly anyone thought that before they began adding OP Monstrous creatures to the game. They just as well might have classed them as "Infantry" and we would have complained that "Infantry is OP"...

And I never thought Wraithlord overpowered in 5th edition. It was decent unit and that was that. It was basically a walker which could not be stunned or immobilized. It died to same weapons as other Walkers, it wasn't an issue.

Youn wrote:
Is there anything like the flamer in AoS?

Can you roll 1d6 to find out the number of hits getting a 5. Allocated 3 to unit 1 and 2 to unit 2?

Or would you have to say.. I am firing half (Round up) at unit 1 and the Other half (round down) at unit 2. Then roll the dice and determine the number of shots.

I think the Aether-Khemist's noxious aether is a gaseous type of flamer, like a Banewolf's chem cannon. And reading through the rules, I think both methods are acceptable. Just as long as you stick to resolving all your attacks one unit at a time. Although the first option is the easiest to work out.

I'm seriously impressed that they've rolled out a universal buff to shooting that is a great boost for everyone except Tau, who it doesn't really change much for - other than to perhaps give them a reason to dust their Fire Warriors off? IIRC most Tau units are single model or had split fire anyway?

Absolutely love this. Large infantry squads are back! Hidden heavy/special weapons are going to be huge. Is this the end of MSU?

Of all the changes so far, this one is the biggest change to how you will actually play the game - so far most have just been to how you resolve the game.

Youn wrote:
The Embark rule is upto 10 models with the KEYWORD may embark.

Think it would be better to just have the new system be based on wounds and up the capacity of transports by 2 or 3 to account IC's joining in. Less extraneous rules.

It would be cool if transports could fit multiple separate units, like two 5 man Tac squads sharing a Rhino.

 insaniak wrote:
While I'm somewhat more concerned for the safety of my dreadnoughts now that bolters can wound them on a 5... I think that the return of split fire will actually help this somewhat. Because while small arms can potentially wound vehicles now, allowing units to split fire means that there should generally be better targets for them.


So while I'm still not entirely sold on the 'everything can wound everything' system, in actual practice I think the situations where you're actually going to be chipping away at vehicles with lasguns are likely to be fairly rare, or at the very least will be just the bit towards the end of the game where all of the better targets are gone and you're throwing the dice because you might as well...

This. +1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rubenite wrote:
I'm seriously impressed that they've rolled out a universal buff to shooting that is a great boost for everyone except Tau, who it doesn't really change much for - other than to perhaps give them a reason to dust their Fire Warriors off? IIRC most Tau units are single model or had split fire anyway?

Absolutely love this. Large infantry squads are back! Hidden heavy/special weapons are going to be huge. Is this the end of MSU?

Of all the changes so far, this one is the biggest change to how you will actually play the game - so far most have just been to how you resolve the game.

I think some said awhile back that MSU was going to remain king this edition based on the new Morale phase. My how times have changed

 His Master's Voice wrote:

Youn wrote:
The Embark rule is upto 10 models with the KEYWORD may embark.

Think it would be better to just have the new system be based on wounds and up the capacity of transports by 2 or 3 to account IC's joining in. Less extraneous rules.

It would be cool if transports could fit multiple separate units, like two 5 man Tac squads sharing a Rhino.

Keywords let multiple units embark the same transport without worry about dropping like...Hive Tyrants or Mawlocs in a pod.

I don't see how Split Fire changes the reality of 8th edition Morale and the benefit of MSUing.

It means large infantry squads aren't quite as penalized as they otherwise would be, but speaking as a Tau player who already had access to this sort of Split Fire (albeit having to pay for it)... MSU was still the way to go, and the change to Morale only solidifies that.

If anything, Split Fire makes MSU even better, especially for 3-5 man units that all have good weapons.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
The degradation chart might also have interesting twists for certain models as well that don't just have to do with reductions in Attacks, Move, and BS/WS. Imagine a Riptide that gets damage to their Nova Reactor as they take wounds - making it harder or more dangerous to use.

Hopefully they utilize this design space well. I could see the heavy armor upgrade changing the chart to something less painful, berserking Khorne daemon engines that get killier as they go down, and more ways to differentiate the numerous metal boxes and tanks of the game. Maybe Eldar vehicles have fewer hull points but suffer less grevious penalties on the vehicle degradation chart? Maybe Leman Russes have high toughness but can be immobilized at very low health? What about a vehicle whose weapons gain "gets hot" at low health as it's heat sinks get blown off? There are so many potential ways to make this interesting.

MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.

It is sad that they are effectively penalizing larger Squads. The more time they take not showing how that will be mitigated, the more concerned I get. Luckily I favored MSU in most of my armies, but I still run full Squads of Sternguard and I would like to keep it that way without being screwed over.

 Galef wrote:
If anything, Split Fire makes MSU even better, especially for 3-5 man units that all have good weapons.

Of which cost more points and you have limited slots where they can fit?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.

Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.

At absolute best, you MIGHt be able to absorb the extra losses on disposable bolterboys, but that's a big IF.

No, generally speaking, MSU fares FAR better under this form of Morale.

 Galef wrote:
If anything, Split Fire makes MSU even better, especially for 3-5 man units that all have good weapons.

How so? You split fire by models, not by weapon type. So you can still fire half the bolters at one thing and half at another.

Surely in a ten man tac squad you'd have to lose eight marines before you lose your heavy/special weapons, whereas in a combat squad you'd only have to lose four marines before a heavy/special weapon is taken out? Yes battleshock is a risk, but with the -1 leadership nerf shown I'd be highly surprised if +1Ld for every 10 models in the unit isn't ported over from AoS.