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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 nintura wrote:
"You can even fire Pistol weapons out of the vehicle when it is engaged in close combat!"

Interesting.

Yeah, I saw that too. Does that mean vehicles can now be locked in combat, and that wyches can keep them locked in combat?

Wytch rule is for infantry only.

 kronk wrote:
"But their real talent is in the No Escape special rule. When an enemy infantry unit in melee tries to Fall Back out of combat with Wyches, they can only do so if they win a roll-off with you. That is so incredibly powerful because it will protect your close combat units from getting shot and allows you to kill whatever you are locked in combat with. Units like the T’au Crisis Suits I was telling you about last time will no longer be able to simply leave combat and shoot you to bits!"

Very interesting!

Yeha I am hoping characters like Lelith give a bonus to the roll.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ohh might be able to use my Ravegers again - and the old flicker field is back

So, you know how everyone got worried about the free fall back rule? Well wyches can negate that

well they might - its a straight dice roll - hopefully charcaters will be able to slant the odds in a bubble.

Assuming a tie is not a win that means there is a 42% that they can fall back.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:


Maybe. If I had my druthers I would just make better use of the 'blind' effect that results from their deepstrike. It would be more useful if they could not be targeted or overwatched on the turn they appear - it was what they were trying to do before just the models never replicated it on the table.

Ooh that could be cool - no overwatch versus Warp Talons on the turn they arrive. The sky is the limit for rules they can create.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kestral wrote:
I'd prefer a bring in your reserves on a 2+ or something, but I quite like "Call it when you want it". Many units are going to assault directly from deepstrike, and I think that is OK in many ways. On the other hand, if they are taking out the random, they REALLY need to watch the game balance. For example they dodged a bullet with 9" away deepstrike, 8" flamer range. Otherwise crisis suits who hit you with 3-18 automatic hits (EACH) followed by another 3-18 automatic hits when you assaulted them were going to make any pure assault units utterly worthless. Still, could be really great done right. Fingers crossed.

Dodged a bullet or were deliberately aware?

I'm going with deliberately aware. This edition is a hard reset. That's not to say in the future bloat won't catch up but this is thier attempt at full codex and cross codex balance. I haven't seen a natural invul greater than 5++ (tzetch with the 4++ of course) and a reroll ability higher than rerolling 1s. And all of that is because they are trying to balance the game. With all the bespoke rules it's nearly impossible to see how anybarmy will play and I will have almost no idea how anyone else's armies will play, but things like null deploy, 2+ rerollable invuls, and invis psychic power look gone.

The wording of No Escape seems to suggest it won't be unique to Wyches. And it looks like you just need one model with the rule to force the roll-off. I might prefer to go with a Succubus rather than an entire unit of Wyches.

That's a pretty important roll for a Dark Eldar player to save command points for.

 nintura wrote:

Yes? You deepstrike 9" then run them in, right? If you get over 3" then you get the melta bonus.

And without some special rule stand there waving your gun.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
If the Fly keyword doesn't grant a Deepstriking ability, then Sniper Drones at least don't appear to be able to Deepstrike (they couldn't before due to the Marksman in the unit, but they were also Jet Pack infantry), but that doesn't prevent other Jet Pack units like Crisis Suits, Stealth Suits, Ghostkeels, and Riptides from having bespoke deepstriking rules.

If Fly does grant Deepstriking, then that will be one hard-working key word.

Isnt that the point of streamlining? Fewer words you have to memorize and account for individual differences on the data sheet.

Also there is PLENTY of randomness still in the game. Charges, attacking, ex blast weapons, wounds dealt, etc. It has just been limited to the same sort of areas instead of having it built into EVERY aspect of the game. Its the same reason why when I DM in D & D I assume people are "taking 10" in most situations unless they say otherwise.

A charismatic bard isn't going to open negotiations by calling the trader a horse fether. However if he tries to go above his skills he might actually perform worse, resulting in him calling them a horse fether.

They are also removing a lot of the minutia thats effectiveness was purely based on the knowledge/skill of your opponent, allowing you to make a more educated decision in list building.

For example: I knew the multicharge rules like the back of my hand and I knew most people had a flawed understanding of how multicharge worked. I never lied or cheater. However most of my opponents had a flawed understanding of how it worked and so would not position accordingly. This was an in game advantage because I had understanding of a very specific circumstance, not any tactical ability.

Blasts is another one. Instead of making it about how anal retentive your OPPONENT was to determine the strength of a weapon it is inherent to the weapon itself and so you can make an educated decision

Fighting out of vehicles in melee would be awesome. Shooting pistols but not rifles is.... ...gamy.

 kestral wrote:
Fighting out of vehicles in melee would be awesome. Shooting pistols but not rifles is.... ...gamy.

Depends on what combat with vehicles (especially transports) is like.

Or you can go with the disintegrator cannon, which has three shots that all do 2 damage at AP -3.

Assuming BS 4, this is a pretty steady gun.

 Leth wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
If the Fly keyword doesn't grant a Deepstriking ability, then Sniper Drones at least don't appear to be able to Deepstrike (they couldn't before due to the Marksman in the unit, but they were also Jet Pack infantry), but that doesn't prevent other Jet Pack units like Crisis Suits, Stealth Suits, Ghostkeels, and Riptides from having bespoke deepstriking rules.

If Fly does grant Deepstriking, then that will be one hard-working key word.

Isnt that the point of streamlining? Fewer words you have to memorize and account for individual differences on the data sheet.

Absolutely, and I'm not complaining if Fly does grant it.

Just an observation that the Fly keyword seems more and more to look like one of the few surviving USRs, with a fair number of rules not listed in the datasheet (granting the ability to shoot after Falling Back, presumably granting the ability to ignore intervening models/terrain when moving, presumably granting some form of deepstrike, and possibly more).

Which would not be a bad thing, necessarily. Reducing the current USR bloat into just a few keywords would keep things manageable.

Remember, if your opponent is within 1" you cannot shoot during shooting phase anything but a pistol. So, if they are outside of the vehicle pounding on the side of it. You need to fire pistols not rifles.

 Latro_ wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Dark Eldar are up!

They sound pretty meh

 docdoom77 wrote:


Raiders sound amazing and don't suffer the movement penalty to firing heavy weapons and Disintegrators actually sound really good!

They don't suffer much of a move penalty now and most folks give em the 5++ as standard right?
Sounds like jink is gone though,,,,

dark lances look good though

Only the Venom can have a Flickerfield for the 5++, they removed that option for our other vehicles in 7th. Docdoom also meant the Ravager, not Raider, which lost it's ability to move more than 6" and fire all weapons at full BS in 7th but now has not only regained that but doesn't suffer the -1 to BS that most units get when firing Heavy weapons. Firing 3 S8, AP-4 (thats a boost, was expecting it to be -3 like a Lascannon) D: D6 means there's potential to take down a Morkanaught in a single round with a single Ravager now.

I wonder if Disintegrators are S5 still, being Heavy 3, AP-3, D2 means they'll still be able to mow down heavy infantry like Terminators.

 Oaka wrote:
The wording of No Escape seems to suggest it won't be unique to Wyches. And it looks like you just need one model with the rule to force the roll-off. I might prefer to go with a Succubus rather than an entire unit of Wyches.

That's a pretty important roll for a Dark Eldar player to save command points for.

Haha yup - oh I rolled a 1 and you rolled a 2? Reroll! Of course Tau can too if they have the CP...

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Or you can go with the disintegrator cannon, which has three shots that all do 2 damage at AP -3.

Assuming BS 4, this is a pretty steady gun.

It also opens up the possibility of weapons like the Plasma Gun doing 2 damage at AP -3 or gives an idea how the Radium Carbine might work. Thankfully not all weapons will have to roll to determine the number of wounds they do.

 docdoom77 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
The faction focus today is awesome. Tons of detail. I think DE players might be happy.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/17/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-drukhari-may17/

I know I am! Dark Lances are AP -4! Good trade for the shorter range vs. Lascannon. Raiders sound amazing and don't suffer the movement penalty to firing heavy weapons and Disintegrators actually sound really good!

Shorter rang, less s. Odd. Lascannon might be better tank buster now

 En Excelsis wrote:
Venoms should be interesting... I kind of think the Incubi took a slight nerf - hopefully a point reduction will accompany that. Farewell AP2 Klaives :(

-3 is the equivelant of AP2 so not really a change and the Klaivex being able to do 3 Damage on 6's to wound can potentially make him a character killer. The fact that the lack of Assault Grenades is no longer a problem means their utility probably just went up.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
The wording of No Escape seems to suggest it won't be unique to Wyches. And it looks like you just need one model with the rule to force the roll-off. I might prefer to go with a Succubus rather than an entire unit of Wyches.

That's a pretty important roll for a Dark Eldar player to save command points for.

Haha yup - oh I rolled a 1 and you rolled a 2? Reroll! Of course Tau can too if they have the CP...

I say go ahead and waste a command point trying to get the opportunity to leave combat. That's​ one less use for something like Morale.

 Mr Morden wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Leth wrote:

They have streamlined the game and removed a LOT of randomness from things like movement and deployment.

There are so many things that you can now plan for instead of having areas where your entire battle plan gets screwed by a single gakky die role. You get more control over morale and fallbacks, you get more control over unit movement and placement, you dont scatter and can make!

Which might be good if you want chess, less so id you want wargame. Generals and soldiers don't have god view like players have.

40k moves more and more away from war to abstract marker pushing

Really? One of the Massive complaints about 40k was the randomness and loads of knee jerk reaction to the random charge range was shown earlier.

Yeah well guess many want chess. I don't. I want to feel like general commanding battle. And that requires uncertainty to counter the unrealistic god view player has. Short of having 2 or 3 tables and gm(which btw can be great fun though not practical in 40k scale game. Superb for submarine game though when you are never sure of full situation. Is that weak sound enemy sub? Cargo freight? Somebody out there i haven't heard?) some random is needed. Not 100% but 0 is just as bad

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I say go ahead and waste a command point trying to get the opportunity to leave combat. That's​ one less use for something like Morale.

Depends on the situation. A critical fight will have you in knots about whether or not to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


Yeah well guess many want chess. I don't. I want to feel like general commanding battle. And that requires uncertainty to counter the unrealistic god view player has. Short of having 2 or 3 tables and gm(which btw can be great fun though not practical in 40k scale game. Superb for submarine game though when you are never sure of full situation. Is that weak sound enemy sub? Cargo freight? Somebody out there i haven't heard?) some random is needed. Not 100% but 0 is just as bad

- You still have to choose where to place these things. There is no guarantee they make their charge.
- On the other end of it you need to carefully deploy to anticipate such problems.
- You need to decide when to use CP to best effect or what you can do to bait out your opponents CP.
- You need to direct fire to maximize the effect of weapons and failing that you need to prioritize your targets in a way that doesn't leave you vulnerable.

That sounds like being a general to me.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Leth wrote:

They have streamlined the game and removed a LOT of randomness from things like movement and deployment.

There are so many things that you can now plan for instead of having areas where your entire battle plan gets screwed by a single gakky die role. You get more control over morale and fallbacks, you get more control over unit movement and placement, you dont scatter and can make!

Which might be good if you want chess, less so id you want wargame. Generals and soldiers don't have god view like players have.

40k moves more and more away from war to abstract marker pushing

Really? One of the Massive complaints about 40k was the randomness and loads of knee jerk reaction to the random charge range was shown earlier.

Yeah well guess many want chess. I don't. I want to feel like general commanding battle. And that requires uncertainty to counter the unrealistic god view player has. Short of having 2 or 3 tables and gm(which btw can be great fun though not practical in 40k scale game. Superb for submarine game though when you are never sure of full situation. Is that weak sound enemy sub? Cargo freight? Somebody out there i haven't heard?) some random is needed. Not 100% but 0 is just as bad

Yeah, I must say I agree on this point: 40k isn't chess and should never be chess. Or I would be playing chess if I wanted to play chess. I'm not happy by this deepstrike change: I used to deeptrike very close to my opponent's units, and often it worked pretty well, now I don't even have a choice.

 godardc wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Leth wrote:

They have streamlined the game and removed a LOT of randomness from things like movement and deployment.

There are so many things that you can now plan for instead of having areas where your entire battle plan gets screwed by a single gakky die role. You get more control over morale and fallbacks, you get more control over unit movement and placement, you dont scatter and can make!

Which might be good if you want chess, less so id you want wargame. Generals and soldiers don't have god view like players have.

40k moves more and more away from war to abstract marker pushing

Really? One of the Massive complaints about 40k was the randomness and loads of knee jerk reaction to the random charge range was shown earlier.

Yeah well guess many want chess. I don't. I want to feel like general commanding battle. And that requires uncertainty to counter the unrealistic god view player has. Short of having 2 or 3 tables and gm(which btw can be great fun though not practical in 40k scale game. Superb for submarine game though when you are never sure of full situation. Is that weak sound enemy sub? Cargo freight? Somebody out there i haven't heard?) some random is needed. Not 100% but 0 is just as bad

Yeah, I must say I agree on this point: 40k isn't chess and should never be chess. Or I would be playing chess if I wanted to play chess. I'm not happy by this deepstrike change: I used to deeptrike very close to my opponent's units, and often it worked pretty well, now I don't even have a choice.

I despised Deep Strike scatter and am very happy it's gone. It's also another of tneva fallacies that we all want the game to be like chess, we don't, we want a happy medium between random events and certainties. 7th went far to far towards everything being random and I am very glad it's being rained back in whilst certain aspects remain random (charges shouldn't be a certianty for anything but really short range for example).

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
The wording of No Escape seems to suggest it won't be unique to Wyches. And it looks like you just need one model with the rule to force the roll-off. I might prefer to go with a Succubus rather than an entire unit of Wyches.

That's a pretty important roll for a Dark Eldar player to save command points for.

Haha yup - oh I rolled a 1 and you rolled a 2? Reroll! Of course Tau can too if they have the CP...

I say go ahead and waste a command point trying to get the opportunity to leave combat. That's​ one less use for something like Morale.

Decision making? oh no!

man im liking everything so far.

 Imateria wrote:

 godardc wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Leth wrote:

They have streamlined the game and removed a LOT of randomness from things like movement and deployment.

There are so many things that you can now plan for instead of having areas where your entire battle plan gets screwed by a single gakky die role. You get more control over morale and fallbacks, you get more control over unit movement and placement, you dont scatter and can make!

Which might be good if you want chess, less so id you want wargame. Generals and soldiers don't have god view like players have.

40k moves more and more away from war to abstract marker pushing

Really? One of the Massive complaints about 40k was the randomness and loads of knee jerk reaction to the random charge range was shown earlier.

Yeah well guess many want chess. I don't. I want to feel like general commanding battle. And that requires uncertainty to counter the unrealistic god view player has. Short of having 2 or 3 tables and gm(which btw can be great fun though not practical in 40k scale game. Superb for submarine game though when you are never sure of full situation. Is that weak sound enemy sub? Cargo freight? Somebody out there i haven't heard?) some random is needed. Not 100% but 0 is just as bad

Yeah, I must say I agree on this point: 40k isn't chess and should never be chess. Or I would be playing chess if I wanted to play chess. I'm not happy by this deepstrike change: I used to deeptrike very close to my opponent's units, and often it worked pretty well, now I don't even have a choice.

I despised Deep Strike scatter and am very happy it's gone. It's also another of tneva fallacies that we all want the game to be like chess, we don't, we want a happy medium between random events and certainties. 7th went far to far towards everything being random and I am very glad it's being rained back in whilst certain aspects remain random (charges shouldn't be a certianty for anything but really short range for example).

Problem is this went too far. Extremes are not good. Now there's zero variance with tervigon for example. 100% trustworthy. Totally unrealistic. Stupid godview

Going from too far one way to too far other way does not result in gappy medium. Just another extreme. Extremes either way are bad.

tneva82 wrote:
Problem is this went too far. Extremes are not good. Now there's zero variance with tervigon for example. 100% trustworthy. Totally unrealistic. Stupid godview

Going from too far one way to too far other way does not result in gappy medium. Just another extreme. Extremes either way are bad.

Well, I guess some people want to play a game where decisions matter more than dice rolls, and others want chance to decide who wins. Clearly, you are in the opinion of the latter. That's fine and your choice; recognise, though, that many of us have been longing for these sort of changes to happen so that skill matters more than list building or dice rolling.

Tervigon may see a points bump for their reliability. Units that still have to roll to enter the table may stay the same or get cheaper to compensate.

Plus we'll likely see lots of ways to potentially bring more stuff to make those rolls reliable.

As for Drop Pods it's possible that you get to deploy half of the list following deep strike restrictions without waiting for turn 1.

So, you have waited all those years that 40k, the beer and bretzel game, become chess, when there are so many others less random games out there ?
Full randomness is stupid. Playing deamons was probably a pain in 7th, but no randomness isn't good either. I do want my decision to be important, to be the key factor of winning and loosing. But I don't mind a little luck to shake things during a battle.

Okay, so after reading the DE post here is what I think I can extrapolate

So poisoned is a thing still and I am (guessing) it still wounds on a fixed value, however from what he said I am guessing that it has a special interaction with the vehicle key word where it only works on a 6.

Open Topped vehicles still allow you to shoot when it moves, so I am guessing that there is no longer cruising speed/combat speed. In addition if I had to guess fast will translate to "dont have -1 to shoot heavy weapons when they move" ability

If I had to guess the lance rule is being translated into +1 Armor Pen as a flat bonus to weapons.

So some weapons will do random damage and some weapons will do flat damage, interesting to see. I wonder if that is how they are going to combine weapons that had two profiles like the disintigrator.
Another thing is that on a 6 the klavix does a fixed number of additional wounds, which strikes me as a solid replacement for the instant death type weapons/rules

I am guessing Jink is being replaced with a 5+ invul save(unless that is to replace flicker fields but I doubt it).

Also an interesting thing to note is that wyches get the invul in the fight PHASE, so they will have their invul save against overwatch. Quite nice.

No escape is worded as a general rule, not necessarily wych specific so we will probably see it sprinkled around other armies. It definitely seems like a rule that should be a Command Point for some factions.

 godardc wrote:
So, you have waited all those years that 40k, the beer and bretzel game, become chess, when there are so many others less random games out there ?
Full randomness is stupid. Playing deamons was probably a pain in 7th, but no randomness isn't good either. I do want my decision to be important, to be the key factor of winning and loosing. But I don't mind a little luck to shake things during a battle.

And there is still plenty of randomness in the game that you need to adjust for. It just seems like it wont be as much of a game that completely swings based on dice, or indeed one or two dice rolls.

So many games I played were decided before the game even started. Did I get invis? Did He get invis? Did they get first turn? Did I get first turn. Pretty much we could predict the game at this point.

 godardc wrote:
So, you have waited all those years that 40k, the beer and bretzel game, become chess, when there are so many others less random games out there ?
Full randomness is stupid. Playing deamons was probably a pain in 7th, but no randomness isn't good either. I do want my decision to be important, to be the key factor of winning and loosing. But I don't mind a little luck to shake things during a battle.

40k wasn't really a beer and pretzel game at inception, and only got enormously random with 6th. I also play other games, for various reasons, but 40k has the most interesting lore which is why I still enjoy playing despite the current gaping flaws with the rules. My opinion isn't at all that 40k should become chess but yes, when it comes to things such as knowing how you can move models, where they can be and how they can be used, my opinion is that they're an essential part to any game which even wants to think about being considered as mostly determined by skill. 40k hasn't got that - the current reserve and deep strike rules allow games to be lost before a single shot is fired, without any skill on the behalf of the victor. That's ridiculous and the opposite of what I'd consider fun, so yeah, I'm happy it's consigned to the dustbin.

I don't think anyone's going to argue against luck being a factor - I don't play ANY games without that element of chance. The key point is whether you think luck should be very decisive or possible to mitigate, and I lean heavily on the latter.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Imateria wrote:

 godardc wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Leth wrote:

They have streamlined the game and removed a LOT of randomness from things like movement and deployment.

There are so many things that you can now plan for instead of having areas where your entire battle plan gets screwed by a single gakky die role. You get more control over morale and fallbacks, you get more control over unit movement and placement, you dont scatter and can make!

Which might be good if you want chess, less so id you want wargame. Generals and soldiers don't have god view like players have.

40k moves more and more away from war to abstract marker pushing

Really? One of the Massive complaints about 40k was the randomness and loads of knee jerk reaction to the random charge range was shown earlier.

Yeah well guess many want chess. I don't. I want to feel like general commanding battle. And that requires uncertainty to counter the unrealistic god view player has. Short of having 2 or 3 tables and gm(which btw can be great fun though not practical in 40k scale game. Superb for submarine game though when you are never sure of full situation. Is that weak sound enemy sub? Cargo freight? Somebody out there i haven't heard?) some random is needed. Not 100% but 0 is just as bad

Yeah, I must say I agree on this point: 40k isn't chess and should never be chess. Or I would be playing chess if I wanted to play chess. I'm not happy by this deepstrike change: I used to deeptrike very close to my opponent's units, and often it worked pretty well, now I don't even have a choice.

I despised Deep Strike scatter and am very happy it's gone. It's also another of tneva fallacies that we all want the game to be like chess, we don't, we want a happy medium between random events and certainties. 7th went far to far towards everything being random and I am very glad it's being rained back in whilst certain aspects remain random (charges shouldn't be a certianty for anything but really short range for example).

Problem is this went too far. Extremes are not good. Now there's zero variance with tervigon for example. 100% trustworthy. Totally unrealistic. Stupid godview

Going from too far one way to too far other way does not result in gappy medium. Just another extreme. Extremes either way are bad.

It's really just a natural outcome of removing scatter dice as a required tool for 40k. Making it a consistent distance also helps with balancing matched play lists a bit.

If random deep strikes are important to you, I would suggest playing narrative games with some variant of the following scenario rule:

Nominate a location on the battlefield where the unit will arrive, then roll 2D6+2 (to represent the 9" average). If the number rolled is less than the number of inches from the point to an enemy unit, the will have a mishap per older edition rules.

One nice thing about multiple ways to play is that the concept of 'house rules' is perfectly accounted for in narrative play.