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.

Tycho wrote:

So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!

I hear these are already being added to the new Tank Bustas sprue.

Sure a canister of gasoline already makes sense but if I see someone model their Tank Bustaz with some potato Launchers I will marry them.

dhallnet wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Even seen a tank move without its tracks on? Or a turret swivel when it is jammed? Or drive under fire without a periscope? Or the engine block overheat, because the exhaust is destroyed?

Thanks for an original reply, I don't know what anyone could answer to that and you totally nailed the core of the issue here.

Yea, sorry, the other messages didn't show up for some reason. Not sure why Dakka kicked me to there.

In any case the news today is paint schemes....so nothing new to fight about.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!

Are you trying to be obtuse? I can't tell, because at this point you just appear to be intentionally misrepresenting my argument or deliberately ignoring what I'm saying, neither of which paint you in a particularly good light.

And of course the answer is no, because, for the fiftieth fething time, the game already has rules for those sorts of infantry-carried close-range anti-tank weapons (meltas, EMP, etc.). There's no required abstraction because the game already have specific rules for such a things, therefore you don't need infantry fishing for 6's against vehicles to "abstract" the things that are already in the damned game.

What is it about this point that is so hard to understand? Am I speaking another God-damned language here?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!

Are you trying to be obtuse? I can't tell, because at this point you just appear to be intentionally misrepresenting my argument or deliberately ignoring what I'm saying, neither of which paint you in a particularly good light.

And of course the answer is no, because, for the fiftieth fething time, the game already has rules for those sorts of infantry-carried close-range anti-tank weapons (meltas, EMP, etc.). There's no required abstraction because the game already have specific rules for such a things, therefore you don't need infantry fishing for 6's against vehicles to "abstract" the things that are already in the damned game.

What is it about this point that is so hard to understand? Am I speaking another God-damned language here?

I mean if you want to proliferate those weapons out again like rending and melta, sure, but not every army had equal access to those things. Or we can keep it simple and just...not worry about it.

Besides a Genestealer most commonly know for tearing the crap out of terminators that supposedly have incredibly thick armor - are only S4. So they can get entirely through armor of a T8 3+, but can't wound it?

Things with unequal access to anti-tank weapons is sensible. You shouldn't say "well, because Space Marines have Krak Grenades, guardsmen should be able to wound tanks with bayonets." Which is how that argument sounds.

For the genestealer example, here's a few assumptions that may help:
1) Tanks are harder to grab onto than terminators to exert force (given that they're somewhat larger and the armor panels are slabs rather than attached to limbs, etc).
2) Tank armor is different in composition to Terminator armor (one gives a 5++ and is based on a system to operate inside a plasma reactor, the other may be any number of different metals and thicknesses).
3) Tank armor is generally thicker than terminator armor, and the weakspots are less present (armpits, elbows, necks - the primary weakspots on a tank are not as weak as those).

Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

But then we have cases in lore where chainswords can kill Deff Dreads - things like cutting through external power cables, pulling open top hatches and doors, and yes, shooting/attacking through vision slits and suchlike.

Plus, I'd say frag grenades fit the bill of explosives - and they're, what, S4? S3? There's your molotovs.

Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

Right up until they rocked up to a Leman Russ Demolisher - with the extra siege plating - and couldn't meaningfully hurt it (in both cases). What, a game where relative armor matters and extra siege plating on a tank makes a difference? Nah, dial it back, that's too realistic.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:But then we have cases in lore where chainswords can kill Deff Dreads - things like cutting through external power cables, pulling open top hatches and doors, and yes, shooting/attacking through vision slits and suchlike.

Plus, I'd say frag grenades fit the bill of explosives - and they're, what, S4? S3? There's your molotovs.

And when an enemy with frag grenades killed a tank in earlier editions, I was unperturbed. Believe it or not, I've lost Russes to frag grenades in earlier editions. But making 4 attacks with your chainsword, Mr. SM Sergeant, isn't the same thing as making one attack with your grenade. Plus, there were tanks in earlier editions with enough armor to be immune to frag grenades - just like how in Real Life, some vehicles are vulnerable to molotov cocktails and frag grenades, but some are/were not.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Things with unequal access to anti-tank weapons is sensible. You shouldn't say "well, because Space Marines have Krak Grenades, guardsmen should be able to wound tanks with bayonets." Which is how that argument sounds.

For the genestealer example, here's a few assumptions that may help:
1) Tanks are harder to grab onto than terminators to exert force (given that they're somewhat larger and the armor panels are slabs rather than attached to limbs, etc).
2) Tank armor is different in composition to Terminator armor (one gives a 5++ and is based on a system to operate inside a plasma reactor, the other may be any number of different metals and thicknesses).
3) Tank armor is generally thicker than terminator armor, and the weakspots are less present (armpits, elbows, necks - the primary weakspots on a tank are not as weak as those).

Let's be honest - you're likely biased, because you enjoy taking gakloads of big tanks and you'd prefer to benefit from the invulnerability.

We no longer have facings or weak points to exploit. Wounding on 6s rounds off the hard edges and makes it a little more equitable. It wouldn't exactly be fair for your big guns to murderlate blobs of infantry and then let you cackle as they're unable to hurt you anyway.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Things with unequal access to anti-tank weapons is sensible. You shouldn't say "well, because Space Marines have Krak Grenades, guardsmen should be able to wound tanks with bayonets." Which is how that argument sounds.

For the genestealer example, here's a few assumptions that may help:
1) Tanks are harder to grab onto than terminators to exert force (given that they're somewhat larger and the armor panels are slabs rather than attached to limbs, etc).
2) Tank armor is different in composition to Terminator armor (one gives a 5++ and is based on a system to operate inside a plasma reactor, the other may be any number of different metals and thicknesses).
3) Tank armor is generally thicker than terminator armor, and the weakspots are less present (armpits, elbows, necks - the primary weakspots on a tank are not as weak as those).

Let's be honest - you're likely biased, because you enjoy taking gakloads of big tanks and you'd prefer to benefit from the invulnerability.

We no longer have facings or weak points to exploit. Wounding on 6s rounds off the hard edges and makes it a little more equitable. It wouldn't exactly be fair for your big guns to murderlate blobs of infantry and then let you cackle as they're unable to hurt you anyway.

I mean, I am biased, there's no denying that.

That doesn't really address the realism argument at all though, so it stands.

I think there's good reasons to expect that things shouldn't be "equitable" between ill-equipped light infantry with no anti-tank weapons, and heavy tanks.

Make AT guns actually reliable and you can have all kinds of tank perks.

Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...

Lammia wrote:
Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...

Could you elaborate a bit more, please?

"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

Agreed, though the "can only fight stuff you declared a charge against" rule was nonsense anyways and is likely gone, because it doesn't simplify anything and is counter-intuitive.

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.

If that's gone the change is fine and I don't care. But if it's gone, it undermines a lot of what the playtester is talking about, because there aren't a lot of advantages to declaring against multiple units at that point anyway.

If they're just trying to stop you from declaring against two units in opposite directions from each other that doesn't bother me, as long as you can fight anybody you can reach from the charge + pile in against the target you do charge.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.

The problem is units that Heroically Intervene (fairly common to have a stratagem that allows a unit to pretend to be a character for this purpose, for example). So I put my whatever a few inches back from the front line and literally unchargable (wrapped, say, in the actual target unit).

In the current edition, you can still plan ahead for this unit - just declare it as a charge target, and you can hit it if it heroically intervenes.

In 9th, you won't be able to. That unit will simply always get to hit you for free with no ability to plan around it or even threaten it with your melee squad - since you can't declare it as a charge target or your charge automatically fails.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.

I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.

I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.

Ok, I see what you're driving at. I guess that's another thing to watch for.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.

I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.

Because you can charge whatever you like now, got something with a 75% or higer charge roll rule, congratulations you can now congaline and charge every unit in the opponents army you can touch with no overwatch bar 1 of your charge targets.
If Fall back has also become a strategum as roumered your going to have won the dang game on turn 1.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...

Could you elaborate a bit more, please?

I can try, but I don't know how successful I'll be.

The challenge of melee in 8th is it needs to trade up to be impactful enough to make up for the loss in bodies and turn. Overwatch played little part with that(outside of a few SM cases), especially with work arounds like transport charges and other more specific Overwatch denial strategies.

Screens were the biggest problem for most melee and will continue to be so. And nobody is going to waste a CP on the meaningless shòoting of Overwatch without a very strong reason, so I don't see it actually adding any choice to the game.

As to Arcos and Repentia becoming the new 'meta' units for the Imperium (a bold claim, I know.) The loss of their 7+ armour being a risk to their charges, their easily small squad sizes and the new limiting factor on 'I just charge everything, always' mean that already very effective melee is made stronger by avoiding any of the drawbacks that other armies will have to deal with

Lammia wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...

Could you elaborate a bit more, please?

I can try, but I don't know how successful I'll be.

The challenge of melee in 8th is it needs to trade up to be impactful enough to make up for the loss in bodies and turn. Overwatch played little part with that(outside of a few SM cases), especially with work arounds like transport charges and other more specific Overwatch denial strategies.

Screens were the biggest problem for most melee and will continue to be so. And nobody is going to waste a CP on the meaningless shòoting of Overwatch without a very strong reason, so I don't see it actually adding any choice to the game.

As to Arcos and Repentia becoming the new 'meta' units for the Imperium (a bold claim, I know.) The loss of their 7+ armour being a risk to their charges, their easily small squad sizes and the new limiting factor on 'I just charge everything, always' mean that already very effective melee is made stronger by avoiding any of the drawbacks that other armies will have to deal with

So the surrounding rules are unknown, but you fail *all* charges if you declare a multi-charge and don't make it to *all* declared chargees.

Rhino blockers were fine, but not guaranteed and now you can build a melee army without being forced to reserve points and CP for those units and relics.

The choice becomes apparent in decisive O/W situations. There are plenty of times I would have liked to charge a Repulsor, but I didn't have LOS blocking cover. Now, if I have a support unit I can declare with them first. If my opponents opts not to O/W they gamble them failing the charge so they can O/W my more dangerous unit. Additionally, if I bleed my opponent's CP off and he's out at the end of the game that Repulsor won't be firing anyway.

The potential consequences of the rules changes are pretty deep.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.

I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.

He can't do that though. He has to get within 1" of enemy units himself if he's going to fight.

the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.

I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.

He can't do that though. He has to get within 1" of enemy units himself if he's going to fight.

Right...and that's imminently possible to do. If they don't base your guy on their charge, you just move around him to get within 1" that way. The point is this makes it extremely easy to abuse heroic interventions to create situations where a charging unit cannot fight against a unit you heroic into them.

Doesn't even have to be a character, lots of factions get strats that let units heroic too, usually at 6" distance to boot. If they don't change the rule, it will be trivially easy for many factions to set up situations where whole units get to fight against a charging unit that the charging unit cannot fight itself.

It would be such a disaster that I have to hope that the playtesters flagged it and the fact that the rule is changing means that the rule about only being able to fight units you charged is changing too. At the very least, it would need to be changed to say you can fight any unit you charged OR any unit that heroically intervened closer to you in response to your charge.

yukishiro1 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.

I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.

He can't do that though. He has to get within 1" of enemy units himself if he's going to fight.

Right...and that's imminently possible to do. If they don't base your guy on their charge, you just move around him to get within 1" that way. The point is this makes it extremely easy to abuse heroic interventions to create situations where a charging unit cannot fight against a unit you heroic into them.

Doesn't even have to be a character, lots of factions get strats that let units heroic too, usually at 6" distance to boot. If they don't change the rule, it will be trivially easy for many factions to set up situations where whole units get to fight against a charging unit that the charging unit fight itself.

true. Hopefully the rule gets changed with the new restrictions. I'd really like to not have to turn into white lady standing in front of calculus meme every time I declare a charge roll with one of my units.

Also, I'd love for engagement range to be like unit coherency when it comes to terrain: 1" over, 6" up. Just charge in to terrain and instead of having to reach your big sausage fingers in to the ruin building and try to poke models around with your tape measure, just be able to go "Ok, they're in there and now they can fight."

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lammia wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Wow. These new rules are truly terrible...

Obnoxious profit for the penitent in my army, but I think the community has successfully scored an own goal with the changes...

Could you elaborate a bit more, please?

I can try, but I don't know how successful I'll be.

The challenge of melee in 8th is it needs to trade up to be impactful enough to make up for the loss in bodies and turn. Overwatch played little part with that(outside of a few SM cases), especially with work arounds like transport charges and other more specific Overwatch denial strategies.

Screens were the biggest problem for most melee and will continue to be so. And nobody is going to waste a CP on the meaningless shòoting of Overwatch without a very strong reason, so I don't see it actually adding any choice to the game.

As to Arcos and Repentia becoming the new 'meta' units for the Imperium (a bold claim, I know.) The loss of their 7+ armour being a risk to their charges, their easily small squad sizes and the new limiting factor on 'I just charge everything, always' mean that already very effective melee is made stronger by avoiding any of the drawbacks that other armies will have to deal with

So the surrounding rules are unknown, but you fail *all* charges if you declare a multi-charge and don't make it to *all* declared chargees.

Rhino blockers were fine, but not guaranteed and now you can build a melee army without being forced to reserve points and CP for those units and relics.

The choice becomes apparent in decisive O/W situations. There are plenty of times I would have liked to charge a Repulsor, but I didn't have LOS blocking cover. Now, if I have a support unit I can declare with them first. If my opponents opts not to O/W they gamble them failing the charge so they can O/W my more dangerous unit. Additionally, if I bleed my opponent's CP off and he's out at the end of the game that Repulsor won't be firing anyway.

The potential consequences of the rules changes are pretty deep.

Perhaps, but I expect it to end up as so called shallow complexity.

Higher starting CP + the regeneration means that I don't know expect the drain to be enough, but that may depend on other things.

Repentia also have a known charge roll once per turn from miracle dice and maybe rerolls for others. Making them quite reliable, while others are out in the cold.

Now that they've said you can only successfully charge if you hit ALL your targets, they should add the following:

"A unit in melee can hit any enemy units within Engagement Range when it is chosen to fight."

That's simple, intuitive, and would deny weird situations where because it was YOUR turn when the enemy counter-charged, you can't hurt them, but if you'd stuck your thumb in your bum and waited, then you COULD strike them in their own turn.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Now that they've said you can only successfully charge if you hit ALL your targets, they should add the following:

"A unit in melee can hit any enemy units within Engagement Range when it is chosen to fight."

That's simple, intuitive, and would deny weird situations where because it was YOUR turn when the enemy counter-charged, you can't hurt them, but if you'd stuck your thumb in your bum and waited, then you COULD strike them in their own turn.

That would be ok, I guess. Still a pretty significant nerf to melee because it makes it trivially easy to screen out units you don't want charged, but at least those units wouldn't be able to fight back using heroic intervention abuse while being unable to be targeted. So they'd have to choose between protecting them or fighting, not get both.

I am down on GW for being morons a lot of the time, but even I have a hard time believing they could be so epically stupid as to keep the "you can only fight units you charged" rule intact while moving to this new multi-charge rule limitation.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Now that they've said you can only successfully charge if you hit ALL your targets, they should add the following:

"A unit in melee can hit any enemy units within Engagement Range when it is chosen to fight."

That's simple, intuitive, and would deny weird situations where because it was YOUR turn when the enemy counter-charged, you can't hurt them, but if you'd stuck your thumb in your bum and waited, then you COULD strike them in their own turn.

That would be ok, I guess. Still a pretty significant nerf to melee because it makes it trivially easy to screen out units you don't want charged, but at least those units wouldn't be able to fight back using heroic intervention abuse while being unable to be targeted. So they'd have to choose between protecting them or fighting, not get both.

I am down on GW for being morons a lot of the time, but even I have a hard time believing they could be so epically stupid as to keep the "you can only fight units you charged" rule intact while moving to this new multi-charge rule limitation.

Well, we'll see how they change melee. It is still trivially easy to screen out units you don't want charged, but that should imho be part of the game - melee needs *some* counterplay. If fall back becomes a stratagem - or there is a fight twice stratagem (with all the extra movement that entails!) or they make Consolidates and Pile-Ins somehow related to movement stat (say, divided by 2 or something) or they let units re-charge after an enemy falls back from them...