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.

 Desubot wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
Plays just like AoS with the exception of Charges going first. So combat will look like:

Player A's Charging Units
Players B's unit
Player A's unit if already engaged

What of multiple units charging different targets do they all get to go first before the igyg?

My understanding is that you don't resolve one combat at a time, but rather all units that are involved in combats.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Welp. so much for playing my Krieg list again and having fun with it.

Yeah, mechanized IG may be functional, but infantry based IG armies are simply going to be way too vulnerable to that gimmicky 4" CC pile in bubble to be viable methinks.

Its a good thing I accidentally sprouted a Stormtrooper army

 Vaktathi wrote:
on paper that sounds like it'll kill any idea of running an IG infantry based army viably, there just isn't enough tablespace for such armies to fit and have adequate spacing.

Why? I mean sure, maybe you can't stand three or four units side-by-side with 4"" between them, but there's more then enough depth on a table to checker-board multiple squads.

And you also need to take into consideration that sweeping advances don't exist anymore- so any units that survive a round of combat can just leave on the next turn, which leaves those melee squads out in the open.

For foot guard, two layers of chaff units conga-lined across the board is going to be very difficult for melee units to get past in order to assault the units that matter.

Hahaha, they think khorne berserkers won't be killed by my 50 man conscript blobs. Come closer, we'll be happy to do the charging if we get to strike first!

Few things said here I want to comment on.

Consolidation:
There is no mention of consolidation after combat. If combat is going to be like it is in AoS then there will not be any consolidation. If there is a consolidation move my guess will be that you need to remain outside of 1"

Pile-In:
Pile-In is still 3", however, HOW Pile-In works is now different. In 7th you can simply move models to get into combat range but in 8th they have specifically said that you need to move towards the nearest enemy model. You have a setup where you have a model that can move and have 2 potential enemy models, one from the engaged unit and one not engaged. If the nearest model is from the engaged unit you MUST move towards it, even if you want to move to engage the other model and force the other unit into combat. Now, depending on the distance, you COULD still force the other unit to engage but its going to come down to model positioning.

Effectively Charging will be used to setup where your models are at to maximize Pile-Ins. It's the same in AoS.

ok, so can someone help me understand this as I've looked it over (With work weary eyes) and I'm trying to determine how this works:

So take it that we have a chaos marine unit and a space marine unit tied up from a previous round. 2 units of raptors charge in to the fray to support, would turn activation go as such:

Both units of raptors attack because of charging in and striking first.
It is my turn, so when resolving alternating activation, I have first activation for my chaos marines.
If the space marines survive this, it is then their turn to activate.

and would this concept follow true across the entire field? Eg, I could focus on one side of the field entirely to dominate that area whilst my opponent resolves across from the other side of the field to dominate that side?

Tristanleo wrote:
ok, so can someone help me understand this as I've looked it over (With work weary eyes) and I'm trying to determine how this works:

So take it that we have a chaos marine unit and a space marine unit tied up from a previous round. 2 units of raptors charge in to the fray to support, would turn activation go as such:

Both units of raptors attack because of charging in and striking first.
It is my turn, so when resolving alternating activation, I have first activation for my chaos marines.
If the space marines survive this, it is then their turn to activate.

and would this concept follow true across the entire field? Eg, I could focus on one side of the field entirely to dominate that area whilst my opponent resolves across from the other side of the field to dominate that side?

Say you had another squad of C Marines attacking scouts on the otherside of the table.

it would go (likely) like this.

both raptors attack first.
your turn so you have priority so you use your chaos marines to attack the squad the raptors are on.
enemy turn, they for whatever reason attack with the marines that just got attacked.
your turn you activate the remaining squad on the other side against the scouts.
enemy turn if the scouts live then they attack as thats the last one left.

assuming EVERYONE lives some how.

next turn

Enemy attacks with the marine,
your turn you get to activate one of raptors or c marine squads then it keeps going that way.

Considering you can move out of combat freely, this makes sense.

Also - this doesn't kill the viability of any army. It just means you can't stack gunlines right on top of each other.

I really like this change.

Just noticed another way that these new rules benefit the defender.

They can essentially force an attacking unit to engage more defending troops than they want to. Say three shooty blobs who on their own wouldn't be able to handle a marine unit, or some ork survivors charging them, they rank up together, interspersed, and suddenly the 20 man unit that your combat experts want to charge, is effectively forcing you to fight 60 models, who even though your good in combat, will crush you through weight of numbers, because if you charge one, your'e 3inches of movement will force you to fight the others too.

secretForge wrote:
Just noticed another way that these new rules benefit the defender.

They can essentially force an attacking unit to engage more defending troops than they want to. Say three shooty blobs who on their own wouldn't be able to handle a marine unit, or some ork survivors charging them, they rank up together, interspersed, and suddenly the 20 man unit that your combat experts want to charge, is effectively forcing you to fight 60 models, who even though your good in combat, will crush you through weight of numbers, because if you charge one, your'e 3inches of movement will force you to fight the others too.

I highly doubt you will get all 60 models into combat though.

it really depends on how reach is going to work.

reality its probably going to be 30 instead of 20 which could be good or bad.

Ok admittedly 60 was a bad example, but I bet a truck of boyz wouldn't want to fight 30 marines.

And you can also intersperse your counter charge units with your gun line, so that they can be effective on your opponents turn, instead of having to wait for your own.

Either way, almost all of the ability to affect these things is on the defending player. the charging player, has less options, because he/she has had to put most of their efforts into just getting to the position where they might actually make it to combat.

Yeah this is interesting. You won't be able to snipe particular models in CC without activating nearby bubble wrap. I like this.

secretForge wrote:
Ok admittedly 60 was a bad example, but I bet a truck of boyz wouldn't want to fight 30 marines.

If the Trukk Boyz manage to tie them up for a shooting round that isn't too bad actually.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

secretForge wrote:
Ok admittedly 60 was a bad example, but I bet a truck of boyz wouldn't want to fight 30 marines.

If the Trukk Boyz manage to tie them up for a shooting round that isn't too bad actually.

Gotta soften them up.

speaking of trukks

i wonder how tank shocks and rams are going to work. i could see an interesting tactic of shocking your way into the middle of a bubble wrap and going ham in assault with all the boyz that pop out.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So consolidations into new combats is back in a slightly changed manner...on paper that sounds like it'll kill any idea of running an IG infantry based army viably, there just isn't enough tablespace for such armies to fit and have adequate spacing. We'll see if I'm wrong, but the ability to move about and lock new units in combat in such a "gimmicky" way really feels open to abuse, just the way consolidating into new combats was in 3rd and 4th.

That 3" bonus move is probably going to be even worse than the old consolidation thing, even if it says "closest". I'm sure it'll be exploited.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So consolidations into new combats is back in a slightly changed manner...on paper that sounds like it'll kill any idea of running an IG infantry based army viably, there just isn't enough tablespace for such armies to fit and have adequate spacing. We'll see if I'm wrong, but the ability to move about and lock new units in combat in such a "gimmicky" way really feels open to abuse, just the way consolidating into new combats was in 3rd and 4th.

You don't need spacing... no templates

Seems to me the ability to drag other units into combat is the reason you do need spacing still.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Karhedron wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So consolidations into new combats is back in a slightly changed manner...on paper that sounds like it'll kill any idea of running an IG infantry based army viably, there just isn't enough tablespace for such armies to fit and have adequate spacing. We'll see if I'm wrong, but the ability to move about and lock new units in combat in such a "gimmicky" way really feels open to abuse, just the way consolidating into new combats was in 3rd and 4th.

Abuse is a possibility but remember that I think we are also getting the ability to withdraw from combat in good order so gunline armies are certainly not DoA.

I just want a system where it feels like any style of army is equally viable if played well. 40K has always been vulnerable to rock-paper-scissors syndrome where certain match-ups favour one opponent over the other from the outset. With CC being easier to achieve but also easier to leave, my hope is that some balance can be restored here. It remains to be seen if this is the case in practice or if it will just create a new set of imbalances.

I think thats what everyone wants. Part of the problem is that there are too many armies operating over too large a scale range trying to portray forces of radically different natures, many that would not face each other in the manner a 40k battle portrays (e.g. Dark Eldar would never face an IG tank company in a pitched frontal firefight the way a 40k battle would start). Part of the problem, at least in this instance, is also simply board space, there isnt enough room for an IG infantry army to properly deploy and spread out, and moving out of CC, even if allowed, can likewise be difficult if there is no room to actually move to.

Could be the case. But remember templates are gone so you can pack your models really tight together.

Wait, now there might be rules still missing, but what if you can get into 3 inches without charging. Maybe there is a mechanic in the game that prevent you from moving with 3 inches like AOS, or maybe its a way to let you avoid overwatch at the expense of your charge bonus. Kind of like sneaking up and getting the drop on your enemy.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So consolidations into new combats is back in a slightly changed manner...on paper that sounds like it'll kill any idea of running an IG infantry based army viably, there just isn't enough tablespace for such armies to fit and have adequate spacing. We'll see if I'm wrong, but the ability to move about and lock new units in combat in such a "gimmicky" way really feels open to abuse, just the way consolidating into new combats was in 3rd and 4th.

That 3" bonus move is probably going to be even worse than the old consolidation thing, even if it says "closest". I'm sure it'll be exploited.

Probably exploitable in both directions.

Would someone please explain to me how consolidation into close combat works?

What it says is that when a unit activates, it moves to the closest unit, even if that unit is not currently in close combat.

But to activate, you already have to be in close combat, right?

What am I missing?

 Traditio wrote:
Would someone please explain to me how consolidation into close combat works?

What it says is that when a unit activates, it moves to the closest unit, even if that unit is not currently in close combat.

But to activate, you already have to be in close combat, right?

What am I missing?

You have to be in close combat, but that doesn't necessarily mean the closest unit is the one you're in close combat with. Another possibility would be that as you move closer to the unit you're in combat with, you come within 1" of another unit.

Formerly Wu wrote:You have to be in close combat, but that doesn't necessarily mean the closest unit is the one you're in close combat with. Another possibility would be that as you move closer to the unit you're in combat with, you come within 1" of another unit.

Right. But I'm assuming that a unit does not activate if it's not currently in close combat, right?

For example, let's assume that A is in close combat with unit B. Unit B is also in close combat with unit C.

A and C belong to player 1. B belongs to player 2.

A activates and kills unit B.

I'm assuming that unit C doesn't get to activate, since B has ceased to be on the table?

And for the record, let me say in advance how bad of an idea this talk of "the closest" is. This is just going to start more arguments about which unit is closest. They should have made it read "any unit within 3 inches to which you can draw a straight line while retaining unit coherency."

 Traditio wrote:

Formerly Wu wrote:You have to be in close combat, but that doesn't necessarily mean the closest unit is the one you're in close combat with. Another possibility would be that as you move closer to the unit you're in combat with, you come within 1" of another unit.

Right. But I'm assuming that a unit does not activate if it's not currently in close combat, right?

For example, let's assume that A is in close combat with unit B. Unit B is also in close combat with unit C.

A and C belong to play 1. B belongs to player 2.

A activates and kills unit B.

I'm assuming that unit C doesn't get to activate, since B has ceased to be on the table?

That would be my assumption, yes.

And for the record, let me say in advance how bad of an idea this talk of "the closest" is. This is just going to start more arguments about which unit is closest. They should have made it read "any unit within 3 inches to which you can draw a straight line while retaining unit coherency."

Since you measure "closest" in relation to the particular model you're moving, not the unit as a whole, then a simple tape measure should be able to solve that problem.

Formerly Wu wrote:Since you measure "closest" in relation to the particular model you're moving, not the unit as a whole, then a simple tape measure should be able to solve that problem.

Fair enough.

I don't think that this is going to be particularly helpful for assault armies.

I just don't see this rule being relevant all that often.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, if anything, if they've removed the consolidation move, this is actually a nerf to assault armies.

Considering the 3' pile in has to be to the nearest model, and it doesn't specify engaged models, then it's unlikely for units to get dragged in unless the charging unit has a decent movement or rolled higher than needed for their charge phase. And you stacked your units shoulder to shoulder, which is really your fault heck, it's something that non assault armies can benefit from! big wave of ork boyz coming down on your head? Throw a counter assault units that piles into other units and forces them to retreat.

For those saying it's gimmick, it's only as gimmicky as overwatch, but at least this has some spacial element to it and not just "Do nothing, get kills".

Beyond that there's not much information on assault. the alternate activation we kinda already knew about, and "weapons and units will have special rules that'll make them more useful" was obvious from the start.

 Lobukia wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So consolidations into new combats is back in a slightly changed manner...on paper that sounds like it'll kill any idea of running an IG infantry based army viably, there just isn't enough tablespace for such armies to fit and have adequate spacing. We'll see if I'm wrong, but the ability to move about and lock new units in combat in such a "gimmicky" way really feels open to abuse, just the way consolidating into new combats was in 3rd and 4th.

You don't need spacing... no templates

Templates are gone, but an area of effect style weapon might still be in the game because that is the case with AoS. As for spacing, you'll need to be at least 4 inches away from other units, because someone could kill the closest model and then consolidate to your nearby unit, maybe five inches just to be on the safe side. You can also remain safe by removing casualties from the middle of your unit, so they can't collapse a flank and be on you like white on rice.With a good deployment and casualty management, it will be a non-issue.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
it's something that non assault armies can benefit from! big wave of ork boyz coming down on your head? Throw a counter assault units that piles into other units and forces them to retreat.

What counter assault unit can Krieg use?

Can they have rough riders? Or ogryn?
Maybe they have shooty rough rider and no ogryn.

Ah yes, I forgot about the Death Riders actually, pretty decent unit, oops.

But no Ogryns