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.
2020/06/09 23:25:49
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
Red Marine wrote: Mobile tanks? Madness! The idea that infantry would move towards the enemy supported by accompanying armor is some kind of fever dream based fantasy.
I love it. I might even buy some Guardsmen.
Now we just need a suppression-by-fire mechanic.
And a mechanic that lets those infantrymen take cover behind the tanks.
2020/06/10 05:45:05
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
Red Marine wrote: Mobile tanks? Madness! The idea that infantry would move towards the enemy supported by accompanying armor is some kind of fever dream based fantasy.
I love it. I might even buy some Guardsmen.
Now we just need a suppression-by-fire mechanic.
And a mechanic that lets those infantrymen take cover behind the tanks.
Behind? What's this heresy? Infantry goes IN FRONT of the tank! Leman Russes are designed with non sloped armor specifically to avoid that the hits to the armor can bounce on the infantry in front of it!
Spoletta wrote: Read the article, it clearly says that you can shoot at whatever is in engament range even if that unit is withing engagement range of another friendly unit.
By the way, i'm 99% sure at this point that vehicles can no longer overwatch.
That's a lot of surety, any particular reason? Because we still have over watch affecting rules in supplements designed with 9th ed in mind, and it would be a real odd move to take it away from vehicles and not monsters since they both get access to big guns never tire.
Missed this message before.
I'm quite sure of it being removed due to the combination of these considerations:
1) We know that something is changing about overwatch in 9th.
2) We know that 9th is removing gamey interactions. Overwatch has always been felt like one, especially with unlimited overwatch attempts.
3) Overwatch is a necessary mechanic in 8th because it avoids that you simply declare "I charge everything within 12"".
4) Rumors say that multi charges now require you to reach all targets that you have declared, or the charge fails. This creates and inherently disadvantage on declaring lots of targets. Overwatch is no longer needed.
5) Tanks and monsters no longer lose a shooting phase if they get tagged in combat.
I know that this is GW we are talking about, but the design of the changes so far really hints at the removal of Overwatch, at least for tanks and monsters.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 05:56:17
2020/06/10 06:12:00
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
Red Marine wrote: Mobile tanks? Madness! The idea that infantry would move towards the enemy supported by accompanying armor is some kind of fever dream based fantasy.
I love it. I might even buy some Guardsmen.
Now we just need a suppression-by-fire mechanic.
And a mechanic that lets those infantrymen take cover behind the tanks.
Behind? What's this heresy? Infantry goes IN FRONT of the tank! Leman Russes are designed with non sloped armor specifically to avoid that the hits to the armor can bounce on the infantry in front of it!
The leman russ glacis is actually sloped. Also, sloped armor anywhere but the front had largely fallen out of favor because it reduces internal volume per unit weight and increases the height of the tank, and the side armor should inherently have a fairly severe slope for anybody shooting it unless things are going very wrong. The leman russ has bigger issues from it's lack of suspension, high profile, and strange internal volumes of the turret than lack of armor sloping.
As a side note, the changing multicharges to require you to make it to all targets, assuming that you can still only fight things you charged, is going to be a nice change, I think, at the expense of units that fight many times.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 06:50:20
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2020/06/10 06:42:58
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
Red Marine wrote: Mobile tanks? Madness! The idea that infantry would move towards the enemy supported by accompanying armor is some kind of fever dream based fantasy.
I love it. I might even buy some Guardsmen.
Now we just need a suppression-by-fire mechanic.
And a mechanic that lets those infantrymen take cover behind the tanks.
Behind? What's this heresy? Infantry goes IN FRONT of the tank! Leman Russes are designed with non sloped armor specifically to avoid that the hits to the armor can bounce on the infantry in front of it!
The leman russ glacis is actually sloped. Also, sloped armor anywhere but the front had largely fallen out of favor because it reduces internal volume per unit weight and increases the height of the tank, and the side armor should inherently have a fairly severe slope for anybody shooting it unless things are going very wrong. The leman russ has bigger issues from it's lack of suspension and high profile than lack of armor sloping.
As a side note, the changing multicharges to require you to make it to all targets, assuming that you can still only fight things you charged, is going to be a nice change, I think, at the expense of units that fight many times.
I was actually referring to a regimental standard where they explained that stuff
2020/06/10 08:00:48
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: leman russ glacis is actually sloped. Also, sloped armor anywhere but the front had largely fallen out of favor because it reduces internal volume per unit weight and increases the height of the tank, and the side armor should inherently have a fairly severe slope for anybody shooting it unless things are going very wrong. The leman russ has bigger issues from it's lack of suspension, high profile, and strange internal volumes of the turret than lack of armor sloping.
That is a fantastic point, but the setting is openly admitting the tech makes no sense and is based off of half complete designs the Admech refuses to acknowledge any flaws with and they also regularly hand out guns which can kill the shooters (plasma).
Leman russ tank only issue is how well it kills my Tyranid monsters
2020/06/10 10:05:04
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
Grimgold wrote: If we can see the problem GW probably could as well, and they've had quite a bit more time to think on it. My bet is that your right on, something with the cover rules gives infantry a leg up, specifically light infantry, otherwise there would be no reason for the massive increase cultist got compared to the increase that intercessors got. Here is my thinking, whatever changed this edition benefits cultist alot more than it benefits Intercessors, cultist went up in cost by 50% where as intercessors went up by 20-ish percent. We haven't seen any justification for that disparity in the rules we've seen so far. In the current edition light infantry doesn't benefit as much as heavy infantry from cover, a +1 to save takes a 3+ to a 2+, which halves the chance of failing a save, where as going from a 6+ to a 5+ is only a 20% reduction in the chance of failing a save.
So enough beating around the bush, I think they are going to change it so that cover just gives a flat armor save, depending on the cover quality. If ruins gave you a 4+ armor save light infantry like cultist and orks could see a huge jump in durability, like 40% against anti-infantry fire. Marines wouldn't benefit from cover, except as concealment to break LoS. That would handily explain the relative disparity in points increase.
The reason is ££££. Push elites and monsters rather than light infantry they have been selling a lot in 8th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Telemons just became hella broken with 24 autohitting S7 AP3 shots per turn. Followed by a rousing chorus of Fisto Roboto.
How 24? You are assuming they are going to be blast? Note blast isn't automatically every random shot weapon. There will be appendix in the back of book detailing which weapons are blast. 2 caestus, 4d3 shots, 8 in average.
Don't know how many here know how hordes work in AoS, but they have a variable cost depending on how big the unit is.
10 saurus warriors are 90 points, but 40 are 320. The cost per model goes down if the unit is big.
They could be implementing the same thing, so a cultist in an MSU is 6 points, but a cultist in a big unit costs 5. At the same time, units purchased this way get the HORDE keyword and get blasted easier.
Except cultist doesn't show such point system...Also you can't give horde keyword to unit and call it done. That would in the end results in 5 orks being easier to shoot than 10 terminators...Doesnt' seem any silly? Not to mention would be YET ANOTHER nerf to light infantry...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Red Marine wrote: Mobile tanks? Madness! The idea that infantry would move towards the enemy supported by accompanying armor is some kind of fever dream based fantasy.
I love it. I might even buy some Guardsmen.
Of course reasons to take those infantry to accompany tanks are going away rapidly...Rather bring in more tanks.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 10:17:42
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2020/06/10 11:12:05
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
The reason is ££££. Push elites and monsters rather than light infantry they have been selling a lot in 8th.
It's exactly this. It has nothing to do with balance or a better game design, but only a way to sell specific type of models. In fact this game design helps factions like SM that should be nerfed into the ground rather than buffed even more.
Except cultist doesn't show such point system...Also you can't give horde keyword to unit and call it done. That would in the end results in 5 orks being easier to shoot than 10 terminators...Doesnt' seem any silly? Not to mention would be YET ANOTHER nerf to light infantry...
Hordes as a keyword can't possibly work in a proper way if it's not related to the actual number of models that a unit has. Troops that can be 20+ models get the HORDES keyword as long as there are X (15? 20?) dudes in their unit. Imagine a single Gretchin, almost impossible to spot lorewise, but easier to hit than 10 primaris gamewise because his HORDES tag amplifies the number of shots that enemies fire at him
2020/06/10 11:28:21
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
What I'm skeptical about is whether this is going to be the usual "180 on what's good so you have to buy a bunch more lol" scheme or legit balancing. It's really hard to tell with GW since they constantly act like they have good intentions.
If they improve melee they need to not nerf shooting. If they improve shooting they need to not nerf melee. Making vehicles better at shooting is great, a lot were bad just because of the moving and shooting penalty. But they have to balance it to not kill off normal infantry.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2020/06/10 11:36:52
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
If they do an 180. then what should be the good stuff in 9th ed?
Transports for sure, they were under or never used in 8th ed, besides the very early stages. Vehicles in general that aren't knights or flyers. Infantry and infantry spam should end up being curbed.
Monsters should make a come back too. Stuff with fly on the other hand should get wacked on the head real bad.
And then just change the terrain rules in a such a way that stuff you have like normal ruines, forests, buildings stay more or less the same. So rather unimportant unless high LoS blockers, and intreduce building packs. Where you have stuff like ruined building of extra tough cover and sand bags, or deep cover trench of getting in to melee without getting shot, commander bunker of doubling your aura range. All coming on now official terrain bases you need to use for 9th. There could even be a CA book coming out every lets say 6 months, with new types of terrain, and each codex would come out with a race specific building of their own.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 11:40:19
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2020/06/10 11:57:05
Subject: Vehicles and Monsters shooting into combat
Red Marine wrote: Mobile tanks? Madness! The idea that infantry would move towards the enemy supported by accompanying armor is some kind of fever dream based fantasy.
I love it. I might even buy some Guardsmen.
Now we just need a suppression-by-fire mechanic.
And a mechanic that lets those infantrymen take cover behind the tanks.
Behind? What's this heresy? Infantry goes IN FRONT of the tank! Leman Russes are designed with non sloped armor specifically to avoid that the hits to the armor can bounce on the infantry in front of it!
The leman russ glacis is actually sloped. Also, sloped armor anywhere but the front had largely fallen out of favor because it reduces internal volume per unit weight and increases the height of the tank, and the side armor should inherently have a fairly severe slope for anybody shooting it unless things are going very wrong. The leman russ has bigger issues from it's lack of suspension, high profile, and strange internal volumes of the turret than lack of armor sloping.
As a side note, the changing multicharges to require you to make it to all targets, assuming that you can still only fight things you charged, is going to be a nice change, I think, at the expense of units that fight many times.
What? When was this change to multi-charging mentioned? Is this an actual rules leak or theorizing?
