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.
Jancoran wrote: Beastpack has 12 lightly armored models for example. It's an issue . Other units in Dark eldar are similarly lightly armored and rely solely on toughness.
Who knows how beast pack will work now? maybe things like razorwings will have rules that make multiple damage weapons deal only 1 damage to that model. Maybe they will have some rule from beastmasters that will mitigate morale. Being lightly armored is not a morale issue, the issue is dependent on LD and model durability. Yes if there is no mitigation and you have 12 razorwing flocks that explode due to losing 5 models to high strength weapons, it is a bit of an issue. That said aren't those models relatively cheap as far as points? If they cost similar to marines per model, and lose models due to morale at the same rate I don't see an issue with it.
I just wish there was an actual penalty for retreating. Not just you can't shoot for a turn.
I do think that people like guardsmen should, in 7E, have an Expendable rule, that lets you target them with blasts and similar, because let's be honest, guardsmen, gaunts, and similar things ARE expendable.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: I just wish there was an actual penalty for retreating. Not just you can't shoot for a turn.
I do think that people like guardsmen should, in 7E, have an Expendable rule, that lets you target them with blasts and similar, because let's be honest, guardsmen, gaunts, and similar things ARE expendable.
Cannot shoot, "run", assault, do anything other than move away. It isn't much if it is just one small squad, but if it is a shooty "deathstar", or half your opponents army, that is a rather large penalty.
JNAProductions wrote: I just wish there was an actual penalty for retreating. Not just you can't shoot for a turn.
I do think that people like guardsmen should, in 7E, have an Expendable rule, that lets you target them with blasts and similar, because let's be honest, guardsmen, gaunts, and similar things ARE expendable.
Not being able to shoot is a penalty. It isn't as nasty a penalty as exists now (where you couldn't shoot AND you were still locked in combat) but it IS a penalty.
When it comes to units stuck in close combat, there are very few factions in which shooting into that melee would NOT make sense. (Eldar)
Tau? Kauyon is all about sacrificing a bait unit for the Greater Good.
Space Marines? They wear that heavy armor for a reason - send in the Flamer squads!
Necrons? They'll reanimate, or get teleported back for repairs... the enemy, not so much.
Orks? Hello, chance for battlefield promotion... DAKKADAKKADAKKA
Tyranids? Eh, they're just going to be digested after the world is won anyway.
JNAProductions wrote: The main reason, so far, it appears to be a shooting edition is the retreat mechanic. You either have to charge many units (which, unless you have a truly killer (and LARGE) unit, will result in you losing) or face nearly an entire army's worth of shooting in response to an assault.
My daemon princes, for instance, can assault one unit at a time-maybe two, if they're nearby each other. Even if they crump both units, the entire army gets a free shooting against me next turn.
Where is the rest of your army? Where is the rest of your opponent's army? There are an endless number of factors to consider, from positioning to army makeup to terrain to turn order to unit charged and so on and so forth to infinity. It's unrealistic to say that his entire army is going to shoot at your one deamon prince unless you ran your deamon prince into the middle of an open field and charged something while his entire army sits on high cliffs looking down upon you. You won't do this, you will mitigate the risk of your deamon prince charging with several other units on the battlefield shooting and charging and ducking into cover. Assault armies will have special rules to help them get into melee and stay alive, just like some do now, which will make things even better for you.
Shooting's going to hurt, unit rules and player tactics will mitigate this. Put more terrain on the table and start moving your units in waves. That's the new 40k.
Jancoran wrote: Beastpack has 12 lightly armored models for example. It's an issue . Other units in Dark eldar are similarly lightly armored and rely solely on toughness.
Who knows how beast pack will work now? maybe things like razorwings will have rules that make multiple damage weapons deal only 1 damage to that model. Maybe they will have some rule from beastmasters that will mitigate morale. Being lightly armored is not a morale issue, the issue is dependent on LD and model durability. Yes if there is no mitigation and you have 12 razorwing flocks that explode due to losing 5 models to high strength weapons, it is a bit of an issue. That said aren't those models relatively cheap as far as points? If they cost similar to marines per model, and lose models due to morale at the same rate I don't see an issue with it.
I think beleaguering the fact that anything and everything will change isn't really an answer though.
as they are currently, the Beastpack is an ideal example of how terrifying the morale could be. that was the point being made.
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Jancoran wrote: Beastpack has 12 lightly armored models for example. It's an issue . Other units in Dark eldar are similarly lightly armored and rely solely on toughness.
Who knows how beast pack will work now? maybe things like razorwings will have rules that make multiple damage weapons deal only 1 damage to that model. Maybe they will have some rule from beastmasters that will mitigate morale. Being lightly armored is not a morale issue, the issue is dependent on LD and model durability. Yes if there is no mitigation and you have 12 razorwing flocks that explode due to losing 5 models to high strength weapons, it is a bit of an issue. That said aren't those models relatively cheap as far as points? If they cost similar to marines per model, and lose models due to morale at the same rate I don't see an issue with it.
I think beleaguering the fact that anything and everything will change isn't really an answer though.
as they are currently, the Beastpack is an ideal example of how terrifying the morale could be. that was the point being made.
True but given no changes an IG blob is far worse off than the beast pack if we assume nothing changes. I don't recall all the stats of the beast pack, but even as is I don't see a ton of danger for them vs a single wound squad with similar number of wounds, or even double number of models. The razorwings were the big wound models, so lets say you had 12 of those (4 wounds each right). Right now the pack is what LD 8? That means you need to lose 3 models to risk even 1 additional model dying. What are the odds currently of you losing 3+ models without a ton of work to do so? Say you lose 5 models in one turn, that is 20 wounds, now you roll a 6, and lose another 3 models that are what 15 points each? (I don't recall points). I'm not really seeing how you are much worse off than any other unit in this case. Because 10 drop meltas might kill 9 of 12 models on a super lucky streak and then the rest evaporate? To me I really don't see any argument that multi-wound models are worse off than single wound models.
The guy whining in pure speculation thread now demands page numbers and rule citations? Look man, I don't want to rain on your pity party (actually I do) but FLG talked about it in their article on the community page, and then dropped tons of hints about it in their VLOG yesterday. They aren't hyped, they are believers, and I have no reason to doubt their judgment on the subject. So you can either accept that FLG sits on a throne of lies, or that the dribbling style reveals hasn't gotten to changes that make melee awesome yet.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Jancoran wrote: Beastpack has 12 lightly armored models for example. It's an issue . Other units in Dark eldar are similarly lightly armored and rely solely on toughness.
Who knows how beast pack will work now? maybe things like razorwings will have rules that make multiple damage weapons deal only 1 damage to that model. Maybe they will have some rule from beastmasters that will mitigate morale. Being lightly armored is not a morale issue, the issue is dependent on LD and model durability. Yes if there is no mitigation and you have 12 razorwing flocks that explode due to losing 5 models to high strength weapons, it is a bit of an issue. That said aren't those models relatively cheap as far as points? If they cost similar to marines per model, and lose models due to morale at the same rate I don't see an issue with it.
I think beleaguering the fact that anything and everything will change isn't really an answer though.
as they are currently, the Beastpack is an ideal example of how terrifying the morale could be. that was the point being made.
True but given no changes an IG blob is far worse off than the beast pack if we assume nothing changes. I don't recall all the stats of the beast pack, but even as is I don't see a ton of danger for them vs a single wound squad with similar number of wounds, or even double number of models. The razorwings were the big wound models, so lets say you had 12 of those (4 wounds each right). Right now the pack is what LD 8? That means you need to lose 3 models to risk even 1 additional model dying. What are the odds currently of you losing 3+ models without a ton of work to do so? Say you lose 5 models in one turn, that is 20 wounds, now you roll a 6, and lose another 3 models that are what 15 points each? (I don't recall points). I'm not really seeing how you are much worse off than any other unit in this case. Because 10 drop meltas might kill 9 of 12 models on a super lucky streak and then the rest evaporate? To me I really don't see any argument that multi-wound models are worse off than single wound models.
Beatspack is LD 5 right now. Do that math in your head. i currently lead with three hounds that protect the other nine. i lose those three, lets say and roll a 4 and... I just lost 2 multiwound models! 6 wounds shot out the airlock.
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Jancoran wrote: Beastpack has 12 lightly armored models for example. It's an issue . Other units in Dark eldar are similarly lightly armored and rely solely on toughness.
Who knows how beast pack will work now? maybe things like razorwings will have rules that make multiple damage weapons deal only 1 damage to that model. Maybe they will have some rule from beastmasters that will mitigate morale. Being lightly armored is not a morale issue, the issue is dependent on LD and model durability. Yes if there is no mitigation and you have 12 razorwing flocks that explode due to losing 5 models to high strength weapons, it is a bit of an issue. That said aren't those models relatively cheap as far as points? If they cost similar to marines per model, and lose models due to morale at the same rate I don't see an issue with it.
I think beleaguering the fact that anything and everything will change isn't really an answer though.
as they are currently, the Beastpack is an ideal example of how terrifying the morale could be. that was the point being made.
True but given no changes an IG blob is far worse off than the beast pack if we assume nothing changes. I don't recall all the stats of the beast pack, but even as is I don't see a ton of danger for them vs a single wound squad with similar number of wounds, or even double number of models. The razorwings were the big wound models, so lets say you had 12 of those (4 wounds each right). Right now the pack is what LD 8? That means you need to lose 3 models to risk even 1 additional model dying. What are the odds currently of you losing 3+ models without a ton of work to do so? Say you lose 5 models in one turn, that is 20 wounds, now you roll a 6, and lose another 3 models that are what 15 points each? (I don't recall points). I'm not really seeing how you are much worse off than any other unit in this case. Because 10 drop meltas might kill 9 of 12 models on a super lucky streak and then the rest evaporate? To me I really don't see any argument that multi-wound models are worse off than single wound models.
Beatspack is LD 5 right now. Do that math in your head. i currently lead with three hounds that protect the other nine. i lose those three, lets say and roll a 4 and... I just lost 2 multiwound models! 6 wounds shot out the airlock.
I think the point being made is that it takes a lot more shots, or more powerful (and presumably more expensive shots, to kill your 3 hounds (at their point cost) than it does to kill, say, a number of infantry equal to the wounds lost with those hounds.
Yes, you're losing a multi-wound model instead of single-wound models with the failed leadership test, but a comparative unit of single-wound models (if it suffers the same number of wounds as the beastpack) is losing proportionally larger numbers of models (because they suffered more casualties, and thus are adding higher numbers to the D6 rolled).
I don't know beastpack stats, so lets say they're 4 wounds each. To lose 3 hounds, you'd need to suffer 12 wounds.
With LD 5, rolling a 3+ will result in 1, 2, 3, or 4 models being lost (and thus 4, 8, 12, or 16 wounds).
IF that's a result of failing saves against 12 single-damage shots, and those same 12 unsaved wounds were applied to a hypothetical single-wound unit with leadership 5...
No matter what you roll, that unit is losing models. At absolute minimum, 8 lost models, and at maximum, 13.
The multi-wound models DOES suffer significantly more if the damage being inflicted is by multi-damage weapons (since that doesn't spill over to multiple models lost per multi-damage for single-wound models)...
But a 4 wound model of otherwise comparable defensive stats (Toughness/Sv) is probably not equal in points to 4 single-wound models - instead, its probably cheaper in points.
Edit: The biggest loser in this system would be mixed units of multi- and single-wound models, like a full Ghostkeel unit (consisting of 3 multi-wound models and 6 single-wound models).
Kill all 6 single-wound models, and presuming Ghostkeels end up at Ld 8, and you end up losing a Ghostkeel per +1 beyond a 2 on the roll (wiping the entire unit on a 5+).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/10 20:21:43
Jancoran wrote: Seizing will be gone. How good is that? Real good.
As for melee, it appears melee will be solid. Units of multi-wound models could be in trouble though. The rules appear to hit them pretty hard. I speak specifically of UNITS of them. I fear that they will be unfairly affected by the rules and that could adversely effect melee significantly for some forces. The LD mechanic is the specific source of concern there.
OTOH unit of 5 models with 2 wounds will be(without very low LD) almost fearless while unit of 10 W1 guys will fear the ld checks. Same amount of wounds per unit but it's the W1 guys that fear LD more.
you lose entire MODELS when you fail LD... Think about that...
Yes but small units are practically fearless. If you lose like 1 you aren't likely to lose anything. When you lose enough that you would be losing many models....Well your unit is already dead.
LD7 unit who suffers 3 casualties isn't in average losing anybody. And then you have 2 left with LD7 you are immune to battleshock.
If you suffer 4 yes you might lose last but that's about it.
5+ and you laugh at battleshock as you aren't going to be losing anybody.
If you have LD8(possible since W2 models are likely be elite stuff or have leadership booster closeby) even if you lose 4 out of 5 you are very unlikely to lose the last member.
There's reason new morale system favours MSU over horde. Unless you have very low LD you aren't going to be losing many models to the battleshock. You are either dead already or lost like 1 member which isn't going to be scary. LD7 cannot even lose anybody with just 1 casualty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jancoran wrote: Beastpack has 12 lightly armored models for example. It's an issue .
Howabout sending in 2 units of 6 members then? Instant survivability upgrade.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/10 20:24:31
It's hard to tell without the full rules, but I can't agree with saying shooting is getting better knowing what we know.
It seems like we're getting a few various ways of putting more firepower downrange, ok. Heavy weapons firing at -1 on the move over snapfiring, combi weapons firing both modes, tl doubling shots, potentially extra casualties from battleshock, multiple overwatch, everything can wound everything.
But at the same time, weapons across the board are losing their ability to penetrate armour saves. Basic infantry weapons grant all saves rather than ignoring 5+s. Marines are getting 5+s against formerly AP3 weapons. Even bigger, cover now benefits everyone regardless of what their save is or what weapon is shooting at them. The ability to wound T4 on a 2+ is going away with all but the strongest weapons.
Something like a Devastator squad firing from a position of cover will be dug in like ticks, 2+ saves wounded on 3+ by scatters instead of the old 3+ wounded on 2+, even incoming plasma fire is going to be wounding on 3+ and giving a 5+ save. If you can you're going to want to be sending in assault units to root stuff like that out.
I think it will be more melee friendly, with stronger transports, and charging out of said transports, but it is still looking to be more shooting friendly at this stage.
We haven't seen enough of Ork and bid stats etc to comment yet though
Speculation:
- you can disembark and assault from all vehicles and the 7th assault vehicles will get a bonus to the range they can disembark, making charges easier.
- bigger movement values on close combat infantry than before
Already released info:
- you can 'draw' other units into close combat
- infantry is harder to kill with the new wound table (longer 3+ to wound than 2+)
- no more 25% loss and possibly running away from shooting
- vehicles more difficult to kill, so my close combat deff dreads and killa kans are going to make it to the enemy to wreck some stuff - no more droppods with flamers that destroy a horde of infantry (point being flamers do less damage to a horde than before) before they reach their target
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/11 03:15:05
Jancoran wrote: Beastpack has 12 lightly armored models for example. It's an issue . Other units in Dark eldar are similarly lightly armored and rely solely on toughness.
Who knows how beast pack will work now? maybe things like razorwings will have rules that make multiple damage weapons deal only 1 damage to that model. Maybe they will have some rule from beastmasters that will mitigate morale. Being lightly armored is not a morale issue, the issue is dependent on LD and model durability. Yes if there is no mitigation and you have 12 razorwing flocks that explode due to losing 5 models to high strength weapons, it is a bit of an issue. That said aren't those models relatively cheap as far as points? If they cost similar to marines per model, and lose models due to morale at the same rate I don't see an issue with it.
I think beleaguering the fact that anything and everything will change isn't really an answer though.
as they are currently, the Beastpack is an ideal example of how terrifying the morale could be. that was the point being made.
True but given no changes an IG blob is far worse off than the beast pack if we assume nothing changes. I don't recall all the stats of the beast pack, but even as is I don't see a ton of danger for them vs a single wound squad with similar number of wounds, or even double number of models. The razorwings were the big wound models, so lets say you had 12 of those (4 wounds each right). Right now the pack is what LD 8? That means you need to lose 3 models to risk even 1 additional model dying. What are the odds currently of you losing 3+ models without a ton of work to do so? Say you lose 5 models in one turn, that is 20 wounds, now you roll a 6, and lose another 3 models that are what 15 points each? (I don't recall points). I'm not really seeing how you are much worse off than any other unit in this case. Because 10 drop meltas might kill 9 of 12 models on a super lucky streak and then the rest evaporate? To me I really don't see any argument that multi-wound models are worse off than single wound models.
Beatspack is LD 5 right now. Do that math in your head. i currently lead with three hounds that protect the other nine. i lose those three, lets say and roll a 4 and... I just lost 2 multiwound models! 6 wounds shot out the airlock.
Am I missing something Beastmasters are LD 8 right now, so the pack is LD 8. Meaning you need to take those 3 hound losses and roll a 6 to lose 1 multi-wound model. Also maybe tanking with hounds won't be the right choice, maybe you'll tank with one or 2 hounds then take wounds on a razorwing flock. Or tank lascannons, meltas etc on hounds and small arms on birds. To me it seems like unless you are already getting murdered pretty badly you have no issue as things currently stand with morale if you allocate wounds in a smart way. Remember instant death (seemingly) no longer exists, so your only worry is things that do multiple wounds, and other than explosions most of those so far are low rate of fire.
wuestenfux wrote: How about charging from a transport that has moved in the same turn?
If so, this would change the whole meta a bit.
We only have rumours at this stage but what I have heard so far is that everyone can assault on the turn they disembark from Transports or they Deep Strike.
To balance this, being locked in combat is no longer a death sentence for shooty units as they can always retreat in good order under the cover of their comrades' guns (assuming they survive the initial round of course).
Infantry looks like it will be a bit more survivable now so less incentive to pay minimum troop tax and spam GCs/SHVs.
This is a whole heap of changes and it is not easy to see how the meta will shake out without playing a few games but I think it will make for an interesting game. Kills will rack up faster but squads won't run away so probably the overall loss-rate won't change that much. Assaults will be easier to pull off but less decisive. I think this is a good thing as gunline vs assault army battles will no longer be so all-or-nothing. It will be easier for the assault units to get into combat but it will be less auto-wing when they do. Gunline players who's units get assaulted will still have options beyond just rolling dice to see how quickly they die.
I think this will lead to a more tactical game. Shooty squads will now have to deploy carefully to try and provide mutual support. Assault units will have to co-ordinate more and try to pick the weakest parts of the line to ensure that their opponents/victims don't simply retreat to allow their buddies to shoot them. I think we will see games taking longer to go decisively one way or another since even successfully launching an assault will no longer guarantee victory for an CC-orientated army.
I stand between the darkness and the light. Between the candle and the star.
We only have rumours at this stage but what I have heard so far is that everyone can assault on the turn they disembark from Transports or they Deep Strike.
This would change the meta severely. I've played Rhino rush in the 3rd ed and the armies there looked much different from those in later editions. But in 3rd ed it has not been possible to double-tap bolters when moving out of a vehicle. This explains a bit the success of Nids in the 3rd ed. The best army together with BA (and Eldar of course due to their beastly craftworlds).
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Actually, on the topic of daemon princes. It could be that they too benefit from the whole "no shooting at characters thing". It's wound based right? So if guilliman can be protected, theres a chance a prince can be too, that would make princes one hell of a threat. Same for juggerlords and their ilk.
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
