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.

We also don't know whether any transports are "cheap" anymore.

 Rippy wrote:

 Bottle wrote:


I also agree this is the most elegant solution and I am in favour of rules with fast resolution.

The only problem this one leads to is the terminator example mentioned above where 3 shots of 5,4 and 1 damage a piece kill 3 terminators despite the 1 damage shot not being enough - so this would mean wounds spill over within a single round of shooting which goes against GW saying that wounds won't spill over.

I think my preferred method would be the attacker deciding the order the damage is applied and the defender then allocating it. It would keep the system fast but not allow any wounds to spill over.

Or even just blanket say "allocate the highest wound first, then descending number of wounds from there"

but this is just speculating of course.

Yep, some good proper speculation

I would rather the lowest damage was applied first and then in ascending order, otherwise it would lead to constant split-firing being more optimal as per the example I posted a few pages back.

I personally hope it's just "allocate all hits first, then roll damage".

I've never been a fan of "remove as many models as possible". It always made multi wound infantry feel weak, because they were only ever as tough as an equal number of one wound infantry, except you can also get one shot by the vast majority of high power weapon. It'd be nice to see something like a nob squad take a bunch of hits, but when the dust dies down they're mostly still standing but wounded. That's the kind of moment I want to see, vs those extra wound only being useful if the unit took an odd number of wounds.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

changemod wrote:


Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?

Compared to how staggeringly useless tank-shock used to be in older editions?

I'm no expert in tank warfare, but it seems intuitive that tanks should be able to break regiments of infantry.

In real life they try and avoid sending tanks into cities now for battle because of how vulnerable they are. Sending a tank into meat grinder territory is one of the most risky things you can do. In the open fields and areas where infantry weaponry has no chance of reaching them they are indomitable for typical motorized infantry squads who would be deployed in them. Typically quicker lighter and more expendable AFVs are sent into battle into cities to provide heavy firepower. These are sent in with infantry as a mechanized infantry division. They also usually have tank busting missiles on them as well depending on the model. Some AFV's are even being upgunned to carry tank cannons on them so they can compete with their firepower if they have to fight them, but in open engagements the tanks win the day.

So it heavily depends on where the infantry are, what type of infantry they are, and more importantly their technology level. For example the most feared gun of WW2 the on the King Tiger couldn't even dent any modern western tank if it was point point blank to it. Even more "modern" tanks just a decade or so older have trouble penetrating newer next generation tank models. Also tank models are not static anymore. The M1 Abrams has been through dozens of upgrades over its lifetime. So it all really depends. The big tank killers are aircraft and attack helicopters.

Funny thing is most modern projectiles are so potent now they are considering doing away with sloped armor since it doesn't contribute to the tanks survival anymore. Rockets use two stages to try and circumvent reactive explosive armor. Russia's new T-14 Armata is the first 5th generation tank and its going in a stealth direction as well. Now the US is considering its options for a 5th generation tank to replace the Abrams.

Tanks are not the be all and end all of warfare they used to be, but they are an important part.

Ugh. Not liking that idea. Stunlocking transports that it.

I fail to see why it's so scary. Your dudes will still fight in combat - likely wounding on 5+ or 6+. You will probably be able to fling a grenade or something too, or your seargent with powerfist will destroy it himself. In fact, buying a decent weapon on your seargant (a mace or sword or something) might actually be useful for once! The transport will lock you down for one turn at most against a squad at full strength.

Am I reading this right:

Transport dies, you roll a D6 for the unit inside, not each model inside, and on a 1 the entire unit dies?

So Transports are now part Battle Taxi, part Vortex grenade?

"These rules are getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Am I reading this right:

Transport dies, you roll a D6 for the unit inside, not each model inside, and on a 1 the entire unit dies?

So Transports are now part Battle Taxi, part Vortex grenade?

"These rules are getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian

No you aren't reading that right.

Models inside a wrecked Transport will now die on the roll of a 1. This isn’t so bad for units like Orks and Guardsmen, who were used to taking a few casualties when losing their Transport, but is going to hurt a bit more for elite units, so be sure to put valuable units in your most durable Transports, like Land Raiders and Battlewagons.

It's models. So Terminators die just as easily as Orks.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Am I reading this right:

Transport dies, you roll a D6 for the unit inside, not each model inside, and on a 1 the entire unit dies?

So Transports are now part Battle Taxi, part Vortex grenade?

"These rules are getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian

Models die on a roll of a 1, not units. So sounds like a per model basis, like dangerous terrain now, but ignoring g saves.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Am I reading this right:

Transport dies, you roll a D6 for the unit inside, not each model inside, and on a 1 the entire unit dies?

So Transports are now part Battle Taxi, part Vortex grenade?

"These rules are getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian

The wording is ambiguous, so (as ALWAYS) it is a bit early to Doom & Gloom.

"Models inside a wrecked Transport will now die on the roll of a 1."

This could suggest that each model rolls a die, and on a 1, that model dies... or it could be read that all models roll a single d6, and on a 1, all the models die.

Both are possible, but the former seems much more likely than the latter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Am I reading this right:

Transport dies, you roll a D6 for the unit inside, not each model inside, and on a 1 the entire unit dies?

So Transports are now part Battle Taxi, part Vortex grenade?

"These rules are getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian

I'm pretty sure it works identically to the Kharadron Overlord transports. You roll a d6 for each model inside and on a 1 the model dies/takes a mortal wound.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

changemod wrote:


Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?

Compared to how staggeringly useless tank-shock used to be in older editions?

I'm no expert in tank warfare, but it seems intuitive that tanks should be able to break regiments of infantry.

Tank Shock were rather good imo in 5th edtiion. Most people didn't know ho to use them well. You could break units and run them off the table (Even terminator units if lucky) or you could use them to squich together pesky units that were spaced 2" apart per model in to a nice bunch of template targets.

 Coyote81 wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:

changemod wrote:


Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?

Compared to how staggeringly useless tank-shock used to be in older editions?

I'm no expert in tank warfare, but it seems intuitive that tanks should be able to break regiments of infantry.

Tank Shock were rather good imo in 5th edtiion. Most people didn't know ho to use them well. You could break units and run them off the table (Even terminator units if lucky) or you could use them to squich together pesky units that were spaced 2" apart per model in to a nice bunch of template targets.

In 7th it was mostly just a funny way to immobilize a rhino with a krak grenade.

I know I'm coming into this kind of late, and probably completely wrong as well, but in regards to the multi-wound weapon idea, do we know for sure that we can only have one wounded model at a time in a squad? If this isn't the case, a possible solution that I see would be as follows. Roll to hit and then to wound, roll saves, allocate unsaved wounds amongst the squad, then roll for damage on each unsaved wound. In this case, we may very well end up with a squad having multiple wounded squad members, but also keeps the shenanigans down to a minimum as the defender wouldn't be able to waste a 6 damage shot on a model with a single wound left.

As described In a previous example, we could use the tyranid warrior example. A squad of 3 warriors, one of which is down to 2 wounds, being shot by 4 lascannons suffers 2 failed save wounds. The defender allocates the wounds, applying the first to the wounded warrior first, and the second to one of the healthy models. From here damage could then be rolled for each wound. You could pick the wounded model first and roll for damage and then the unwounded model, or vice-versa. This may result in the wounded model taking only a single wound while the "fresh" model dies from a 4 damage shot.

As I said before, this is pure speculation at this point, but this is one of the ways I could see them finding a way to avoid any shooting shenanigans. Please feel free to correct me if I missed something important or obvious, I don't quite have these new rules rumors memorized down to a T quite yet.

changemod wrote:


Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?

Assuming they cost only 35 points like they used to? And none blow up? And I can't shoot past them? Sure it might be frustrating. I'm sure Tau won't worry about Rhinos in fusion blaster range.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Am I reading this right:

Transport dies, you roll a D6 for the unit inside, not each model inside, and on a 1 the entire unit dies?

So Transports are now part Battle Taxi, part Vortex grenade?

"These rules are getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian

GW is altering the rules, pray they dont alter them any further.

changemod wrote:
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?

Probably as frustrating as it was to watch every squad sent charging in be blasted apart by Overwatch after being pin-cushioned to death from across the board.

I mean, this is only fair.

Thank you for those that clarified the transport/passengers rule for me. Hopefully it will be a per-model rather than per-unit basis in the finished rules.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
It's models. So Terminators die just as easily as Orks.

And this is a good thing...?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Thank you for those that clarified the transport/passengers rule for me. Hopefully it will be a per-model rather than per-unit basis in the finished rules.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
It's models. So Terminators die just as easily as Orks.

And this is a good thing...?

Depends on the points. It creates a risk versus reward scenario that keeps people from jamming assault terminators into rhinos. Assuming that's a thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
It's models. So Terminators die just as easily as Orks.

And this is a good thing...?

It isnt, but...

The streamlining ™

The only thing in my army that run in transports are Firewarriors so it doesn't affect me, but I can see how people can call Kirby's Mother name whenever their character/ultra expensive GK paladin dies for a 1.
Probably a Mortal Wound onto a 1 would be better. It kill orks, but just wound multi-wound models. For a more easy aplication it could be something like "Roll a dice for every model of a unit in the transport, for every 1 that unit suffers a Mortal Wound"

 Carnikang wrote:

changemod wrote:
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?

Probably as frustrating as it was to watch every squad sent charging in be blasted apart by Overwatch after being pin-cushioned to death from across the board.

I mean, this is only fair.

I can't really think of any instances where Overwatch actually killed one of my assault units.

Just about the only time I remember seeing it happen -at all- was someone charging a Hive Tyrant with two wounds left at a Deathmark and Harbinger of Despair unit that had marked it for death.

Surprisingly charging an AP2 flamer that wounds you on a 2+ isn't a good career move.

changemod wrote:
Can you imagine how staggeringly frustrating that would be though? Getting stun-locked across your gunline by largely harmless transports?

If all models can use grenades again then it won't be as bad. Sure, you may not be able to shoot for a turn but you'll damage their transport.
Maybe even destroy it if your lucky, deterring opponents from charging in the first place.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
The wording is ambiguous, so (as ALWAYS) it is a bit early to Doom & Gloom.

It's really not, I think people need to work on their reading comprehension skills. It's abundantly clear that you roll a dice for each model in the transport and if a 1 is rolled that model dies. Not the squad, not your grandmother, you don't take a wound. The model dies. It's as clear as a super-clear clear thing. Dakka vision is a terrible thing.

 Hollow wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
The wording is ambiguous, so (as ALWAYS) it is a bit early to Doom & Gloom.

It's really not, I think people need to work on their reading comprehension skills. It's abundantly clear that you roll a dice for each model in the transport and if a 1 is rolled that model dies. Not the squad, not your grandmother, you don't take a wound. The model dies. It's as clear as a super-clear clear thing. Dakka vision is a terrible thing.

Agreed and I don't even think it's a worrisome rule in that, yet.

You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You say that, but when Abaddon or Calgar goes POP 'cause you rolled a 1 you'll be pretty annoyed that the rule isn't a little more nuanced.

Only good thinks can come from Abaddon or Papa Smurf going down. The easier, the better

 davou wrote:


No, its not impossible to have both of them, but historically we have not had both of them. We have had some good rules that were fluffy, and some good rules that werent fluffy. We've had bad rules that weren't fluffy, and some bad rules that were very fluffy. not to mention that the fluff for this game is written inconsistently by upwards of 20 seperate authors and a half dozen codex writers.

Which is due to them being incompetent. Doesn't matter then do they try to follow fluff or not. If they try to break fluff(like with mandiblasters) they still would screw the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Loopstah wrote:
It sounds more like it will be:

Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.

Lascannon does 2 damage, allocate the damage to the wounded Terminator (they now die), the extra wound is lost.

You lose two Terminators with no wounds left over.

Or:

Lascannon does 4 damage, remove a Terminator, extra wounds are lost.
Lascannon does 2 damage,
Lascannon does 1 damage, allocate the damage to a Terminator (they now have 1 wound left)

You lose terminator with wound.

Unless you roll one at a time which way it goes?

Your way if defender choose, my way if attacker choose. Is GW looking to maximize casualties or minimize?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:
What is confusing here sorry? Attacker rolls to hit and wound on the weapon against the squad of his choice.
Defender then chooses who in that squad takes the wound, though has to start with the wounded model.

The attacker has to declare all targets from weapons within in squad prior to start shooting though.(Ie 6 bolters against that squad, multi-melta against that tank etc)

Order in which defender picks up damage rolls to apply. This has big effect and the more wounds model has and bigger damage gun they get shot the bigger the effect. If there is unit that has 6 wound models and fired by lascannon this could make difference between wounded model having 1 wound suffered(5 left) or 5 wound suffered(1 left)...

We should get some starter set leaks later, today is the managers meeting where they let them play with it.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
What the issue seems to be is people not agreeing on who decides what order multiple multi-wound unsaved shots should be resolved in... but only when it comes to models that have greater than 2 but less than 6 wounds. Which seems to be Tyranids and not much else (if you're really worrying about removing multiple Russ's with a Las-Dev squad then you're going to have had to be very lucky with your rolls).

It affects also with W2 models and yes even with russ platoons where it can mean difference between causing 1 wound or 6 wounds to the next russ after destroying one russ with barrage of lascannons. If you are IG player do you prefer second russ suffering 1 or 6 wound? Whatabout when you are opposing russ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:


A few players in my local group have picked on this as a flaw, or at least a feature that will define the style of play at tournaments. Of course we've yet to see points, terrian rules or if the rules/dataslates reveal a standard counter to such an opening move.

I very much doubt that vehicles will cause models they assault to have to forgo shooting in order to retreat away. Vehicles don't lock models into combat now,and it would obviously be a bad thing to add that effect in now.

If for some reason they did over look that, I also expect it to be corrected very quickly. Your friends would get one tournament of giggles max I think

Players wanted vehicles and non-vehicles to work same way. They got it.

I think its fairy safe to say rhinos and other transports are gonna go up in cost.

If you are gonna let 5 rhinos charge 5 vulnerable shooty units then no offence but ye battleplan is going wrong right?

its not much different than letting you get swapped down by multiple units of flesh hounds, or spawn or wraiths etc currently... just in this case you can actually get out of the combat instead of b loosing the combat and being sweeped to death