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.

 streetsamurai wrote:
these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.

They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Ignoring the first x points of damage of each attack might work as well.

I don't disagree. But at this point, therems no evidence that this will be the case. They would have make a mention of it if it was the case

They've literally only talked in generalizations and in terms of the 2 squads in the box. There is no real "at this point" to judge other factions by.

these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.

They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo), so it seems pretty evident that it will be the case. Sure, we can cling to the hope that we only have a partial view of the rules, and that
the full one will be ''better'' or/and more complete, but this kind of hope pretty much always ends up to be false when it comes to GW

All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved

chaos0xomega wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
While you're debating needlessly about the symbols, the article on close combat is up on Warhammer Community :

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/16/close-combat-is-a-deadly-dance-of-death-in-new-kill-team/

Basically : each side roll their melee attack dice simultaneously and starting by the attacker, each alternate to determine which will be used to inflict damage or cancel a hit from the opponent (working like a save).

Interesting mechanic...and the attacker doesn't especially have the advantage, here. He'll have to be careful of the enemy counterattack and plan for it as well.

Interesting, I figured they might have tried to balance it by having the Defender have less chance of succeeding than the attacker. The problem I see is if you're attacking an opponent that is good in melee and you're not, well it's certain death for you.

But... isn't that what *should* happen?

 tauist wrote:
I think there still has to be something more to the symbols. I mean, if an obstacle slows a model down by 2", and getting injured slows down a model by 2", there is no point whatsoever in using the symbols. Torrent circle coulda easily been just "Area 2"".
There's something more they haven't told us..

I really don't think there is. The only missing piece seems to be how exactly the movement stat degrades with damage. As others have pointed out, if it works the way we think it works it means that the degrading effect is consistent regardless of peoples move stats (i.e. the impact on 2 different models with 2 different move stats will always be a 33% reduction in distance moved, rather than one model potentially suffering a 50% cut while the other only gets hit with 25%). But, uhh... if thats the only thing that the symbols really do they could have basically achieved the same result with a damage chart ala vehicles in 40k. Not quite as streamlined but he overhead is minimal. If you're implementing something like these shapes then the overhead that comes with the shapes needs to be LESS than the overhead that players would have to contend with if the shapes were not present. Right now, it seems like a wash, at best, and at worst the shapes are more of a burden than an asset.

Umm but wasn't it already revealed that all models in the game will just have a various number of circles as their M stat? If that's the case, the finer nuances of percentages goes out the window, its just cumulative +2"/-2" modifiers to all ranges.. and if this is the case, they coulda just used regular inch values.

However, its possible that whoever wrote the WC article is clueless about the things we will be introduced to in the Compendium.. wouldn't be the first time.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm okay with the Risk style combat resolution, sounds slow but at least has choices and represents simultaneous strikes and parries.

I agree that they went too far with the streamlining if stabbing a Terminator is exactly as easy as stabbing a grot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So the expectation is then that MEQs and better will either be stupidly easy to stab to death with a butter knife, or have a bazillion wounds to compensate and be impossible to affect at range when power armour does its job.

Those models will still possess a defense stat which will likely be more efficient at blocking hits than a grot.

Sooo, I was 200% right, the CC system IS comically stupid, doesn't make any sense, and ruins the game for every single model that dares to take better armor than nothing. I hope Terminators cost the same as Scouts, ditto with Tempestus and Conscripts

And I especially like beyond idiotic quip about 'not wearing a helmet'. All my models do. Can I double the number of defence dice then?

chaos0xomega wrote:
But... isn't that what *should* happen?

No. What should happen is that naked berserker attacking armored warrior has a big chance of losing. That's how say Roman legionnaires owned Gaul and Britannic berserkers despite them being stronger, bigger, and using longer weapons. Or knights were trampling 10x their numbers in light infantry. Because flailing at enemy you can't hurt does nothing. Not in this comically stupid system though, you can be naked but your weapons phase through enemy shields and plates like nothing. Why take storm shield, better take potato peeler in off hand so you can make more attack rolls because then your opponent will run out of dice and you can stab his Terminator model to death with butter knife

I especially like that dumb power sword profile. All you need is two salad forks and you can stab him to death because you roll more dice so you can easily parry attacks you shouldn't be able to affect at all and just dump extra dice into stabbing that Daemon Price dead

Also, just look at factions, at all the helmetless necrons and demons covered in all these gaps-- Wait, what do you mean their whole body is 'armour' and this comically stupid nonsense of a mechanic makes even less sense with them?

 Flinty wrote:
They might have 150 wounds each,or additional parry opportunities or something.

These would be just bandaids on beyond idiotic system. Let's say I stun terminator and really try to stab a gap in the armour - he is suddenly parrying me without moving? Or twice as durable as any other SM despite being attacked in vulnerable spot? Why not just give them them the number of wounds/parries every other veteran SM has, just with chance of saving them? They already have armour save on the sheet, just use it!

*sigh* Where did I put my 'Jump to Conclusions' mat? Has to be around here somewhere...

 streetsamurai wrote:
these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.

They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Ignoring the first x points of damage of each attack might work as well.

I don't disagree. But at this point, therems no evidence that this will be the case. They would have make a mention of it if it was the case

They've literally only talked in generalizations and in terms of the 2 squads in the box. There is no real "at this point" to judge other factions by.

these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.

They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo), so it seems pretty evident that it will be the case. Sure, we can cling to the hope that we only have a partial view of the rules, and that
the full one will be ''better'' or/and more complete, but this kind of hope pretty much always ends up to be false when it comes to GW

You're missing the entire point, which was wrapping around to what you were quoting: that Marines and other power armor and above models may have rules that ignore or affect the very general statement of "armor doesn't work in melee"(which is very much hinting at the actual characteristic of AV not being the melee defensive stat). As stated, there is no "at this point" regarding those factions or models because they have only talked about the models in the box.

This isn't a "wait and see approach" statement, this is a "they've literally only talked about 2 out of X factions, we can't definitely say" statement.

They certainly have said that they will be using "bespoke datacards", so I assume they will fill them with bespoke rules for stuff like that.

Because exception-based design, I suppose.

I suppose in a game that has saves that can save critical wounds that cant't be saved by critical saves that can save critical wounds, it wouldn't be beyond the unimaginable to have armour that works when armour does not work, and probably a weapon that negates the armour that works when armour does not work.

I'm kind of glad. I was worrying this edition would be great, and it still might be, but now I know I can stick to infinity and use the models here, as the game is going down a path I am not a fan of.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I suppose in a game that has saves that can save critical wounds that cant't be saved by critical saves that can save critical wounds, it wouldn't be beyond the unimaginable to have armour that works when armour does not work, and probably a weapon that negates the armour that works when armour does not work.

God this edition is shaping up to be such a disaster

The Armour stats are specifically designed to work against shooting. The close combat mechanic is entirely different and I imagine that the number of combat dice you roll and the number of wounds the model has will take into account the survivability of the model in question, including armour effects. Making a specific dice roll to represent an armour save is only one way of factoring in the effects of armour to determine if a model becomes combat ineffective in any given turn, against any given opponents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Re the point about a stunned terminator, yes you could easily give something with heavy armour additional parry bonuses to represent the armour stopping the incoming attacks. It’s all just abstracted mechanisms to model ultimately whether a model continues to fight or does not continue to fight.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I suppose in a game that has saves that can save critical wounds that cant't be saved by critical saves that can save critical wounds, it wouldn't be beyond the unimaginable to have armour that works when armour does not work, and probably a weapon that negates the armour that works when armour does not work.

God this edition is shaping up to be such a disaster

Its amazing how quickly I went from "Oh gak, this looks like it might be incredible" to "meh, it might be okay".

 tauist wrote:

Umm but wasn't it already revealed that all models in the game will just have a various number of circles as their M stat? If that's the case, the finer nuances of percentages goes out the window, its just cumulative +2"/-2" modifiers to all ranges.. and if this is the case, they coulda just used regular inch values.
However, its possible that whoever wrote the WC article is clueless about the things we will be introduced to in the Compendium.. wouldn't be the first time.

Nope. Todays article said most models have squares or circles for movement (which implies that some may use triangles or pentagons), so really its going to be a cumulative +/- 2 or +/- 3 in most cases. This is a case where an idea (i.e. ensuring both suffer a consistent 33% penalty or whatever) sounds good in theory, but in practice I'm not sure it really matters all that much.

As regards the opposed melee rules, it looks like an attempt to keep both players engaged with the game, but I'm not sure how well it will work in practice. The samurai minis game Ronin: Skirmish Wargames in the Age of the Samurai (2013) did something similar, but with players choosing to use a figure's bonus dice either as offense or defense before the Attacker rolls to hit. In practice, we found it made the game take longer as we had to select different color tokens secretly, then reveal them simultaneously. With the new KT melee rules, it should not take as long since both sides have seen how the dice fell, but my prior experience makes me wary.

I'm going to have to read the complete rules for myself. However, I also don't want to waste money on a train wreck of a game, not with GW prices. Since the old KT Core was $40 US, the new one will be more expensive, say $50. Ronin may be unplayable, but only set me back $12.55 US in 2013.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I suppose in a game that has saves that can save critical wounds that cant't be saved by critical saves that can save critical wounds, it wouldn't be beyond the unimaginable to have armour that works when armour does not work, and probably a weapon that negates the armour that works when armour does not work.

God this edition is shaping up to be such a disaster

Its amazing how quickly I went from "Oh gak, this looks like it might be incredible" to "meh, it might be okay".

 tauist wrote:

Umm but wasn't it already revealed that all models in the game will just have a various number of circles as their M stat? If that's the case, the finer nuances of percentages goes out the window, its just cumulative +2"/-2" modifiers to all ranges.. and if this is the case, they coulda just used regular inch values.
However, its possible that whoever wrote the WC article is clueless about the things we will be introduced to in the Compendium.. wouldn't be the first time.

Nope. Todays article said most models have squares or circles for movement (which implies that some may use triangles or pentagons), so really its going to be a cumulative +/- 2 or +/- 3 in most cases. This is a case where an idea (i.e. ensuring both suffer a consistent 33% penalty or whatever) sounds good in theory, but in practice I'm not sure it really matters all that much.

Ahh ok, thanks for setting me straight squire. If other shapes are involved in other datasheets, there is still some merit to them. But can't help thinking the shape mechanic coulda been used to a much greater effect, via some "advanced rules" perhaps, where each multiple of a gauge could have triggered a reaction etc

Now I just want to see the compendium datasheets..

 Flinty wrote:

All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved

Maybe they'll let Termies make their save on 2D6....

 Soundtheory wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved

Maybe they'll let Termies make their save on 2D6....

This is the single most out of touch with the game machanics post in this thread.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Soundtheory wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved

Maybe they'll let Termies make their save on 2D6....

This is the single most out of touch with the game machanics post in this thread.

Like throwing more garbage on a dumpster fire.

 Flinty wrote:
The Armour stats are specifically designed to work against shooting. The close combat mechanic is entirely different and I imagine that the number of combat dice you roll and the number of wounds the model has will take into account the survivability of the model in question, including armour effects. Making a specific dice roll to represent an armour save is only one way of factoring in the effects of armour to determine if a model becomes combat ineffective in any given turn, against any given opponents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Re the point about a stunned terminator, yes you could easily give something with heavy armour additional parry bonuses to represent the armour stopping the incoming attacks. It’s all just abstracted mechanisms to model ultimately whether a model continues to fight or does not continue to fight.

abstraction still should feel to fit the setting. Armoured units are a huge part of the settings theme, so having armor for shooting and not in CC is a bit odd. I wonder if they tested it and found it made units like space marines all too resilient. Well I suspect that’s the reason.
Maybe a AP system on CC was a better fit for feel, but with the table being so small once marines where in combat they would be far to hard to hurt under the current system.

But I feel with GW only focused on two teams, they kicked themselves down as we really need to see how they interact with more specific things. Like deamons and marines to really understand.
A bespoke rules Approach is just not a good way to handle these sort of interactions.
Would it have been bad to at least put the ork weapons down so we can see, assuming they are slightly more cc focussed.
It’s coming back why I never read warhammer community articles.
Edits after reading better

I've been looking a bit more at recent discussions regarding the no armor saves in combat, and there's two main defenses. One is that your attacks are now your armor saves, which I heavily dislike. Knights wore armor so they could take hits and not die, and a weapon to kill. Not a weapon to act as armor, though blocking was important.
The other defense, and the one that will make or break me buying the starter set, is that armor in close combat is represented by wounds. If this is the case, I'm not playing at all.
Wounds affect close combat and ranged combat roughly equally, but you get armor saves in ranged combat. If wounds are armor in close combat, it neuters ranged, and it will be a shame. I was wondering why a lasgun took so many shots to kill a guardsman, and I hope my worries are unsubstantiated.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Soundtheory wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved

Maybe they'll let Termies make their save on 2D6....

This is the single most out of touch with the game machanics post in this thread.

It was a jest and reference to how they worked long ago. Try not to take your games and toy soldiers too seriously.

Also it should be circle d pentagon I think…

 Irbis wrote:
Sooo, I was 200% right, the CC system IS comically stupid, doesn't make any sense, and ruins the game for every single model that dares to take better armor than nothing. I hope Terminators cost the same as Scouts, ditto with Tempestus and Conscripts

And I especially like beyond idiotic quip about 'not wearing a helmet'. All my models do. Can I double the number of defence dice then?

chaos0xomega wrote:
But... isn't that what *should* happen?

No. What should happen is that naked berserker attacking armored warrior has a big chance of losing. That's how say Roman legionnaires owned Gaul and Britannic berserkers despite them being stronger, bigger, and using longer weapons. Or knights were trampling 10x their numbers in light infantry. Because flailing at enemy you can't hurt does nothing. Not in this comically stupid system though, you can be naked but your weapons phase through enemy shields and plates like nothing. Why take storm shield, better take potato peeler in off hand so you can make more attack rolls because then your opponent will run out of dice and you can stab his Terminator model to death with butter knife

I especially like that dumb power sword profile. All you need is two salad forks and you can stab him to death because you roll more dice so you can easily parry attacks you shouldn't be able to affect at all and just dump extra dice into stabbing that Daemon Price dead

Also, just look at factions, at all the helmetless necrons and demons covered in all these gaps-- Wait, what do you mean their whole body is 'armour' and this comically stupid nonsense of a mechanic makes even less sense with them?

 Flinty wrote:
They might have 150 wounds each,or additional parry opportunities or something.

These would be just bandaids on beyond idiotic system. Let's say I stun terminator and really try to stab a gap in the armour - he is suddenly parrying me without moving? Or twice as durable as any other SM despite being attacked in vulnerable spot? Why not just give them them the number of wounds/parries every other veteran SM has, just with chance of saving them? They already have armour save on the sheet, just use it!

You seem to know a lot more about the rules than has been published so far. Do you work in the GW design team, by chance?

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've been looking a bit more at recent discussions regarding the no armor saves in combat, and there's two main defenses. One is that your attacks are now your armor saves, which I heavily dislike. Knights wore armor so they could take hits and not die, and a weapon to kill. Not a weapon to act as armor, though blocking was important.
The other defense, and the one that will make or break me buying the starter set, is that armor in close combat is represented by wounds. If this is the case, I'm not playing at all.
Wounds affect close combat and ranged combat roughly equally, but you get armor saves in ranged combat. If wounds are armor in close combat, it neuters ranged, and it will be a shame. I was wondering why a lasgun took so many shots to kill a guardsman, and I hope my worries are unsubstantiated.

Its all an abstraction, nothing really has to directly reflect these concepts. Everything gets mixed up into the melting pot of the mechanics and the end result either feels fitting or it doesn't.

I would say it looks more like shooting is at a normal level and they were finding that the mechanism of being able to block hits was leaving melee combat too weak in comparison and they needed to fix that somehow.

Generally you want melee to be more deadly because you have to account for the fact that you have to cover ground to get there and you are leaving yourself vulnerable too.

There were other options to do this other than just remove the armour saves, but we won't know if they've succeeded in making everything *feel* right until we see the various profiles.

They can easy enough ad extra dice for armour and skill, but even a extra two dice is a huge bump in defence for CC.
The system needs a gang up mechanic of some kind as well or under what we know and can be reasonable about assuming would make units way more durable than I think is expected.

We really should have got a these are some profiles to see how they will work out. So we can at least discuss what we know based on info like what they intend a space marine to be.

The funniest part of this “conversation” was most people originally thought that close combat was just going to be the same as shooting, but instead you actually defend by attacking and most models have a better WS than armour save.

Vorian wrote:
Its all an abstraction, nothing really has to directly reflect these concepts. Everything gets mixed up into the melting pot of the mechanics and the end result either feels fitting or it doesn't.

I would say it looks more like shooting is at a normal level and they were finding that the mechanism of being able to block hits was leaving melee combat too weak in comparison and they needed to fix that somehow.

Generally you want melee to be more deadly because you have to account for the fact that you have to cover ground to get there and you are leaving yourself vulnerable too.

There were other options to do this other than just remove the armour saves, but we won't know if they've succeeded in making everything *feel* right until we see the various profiles.

I don't know why people use terribad argument 'it's just an abstraction'. Abstractions are not inherently bad, but when one pees all over realism and feel of the setting, it's gak abstraction. Especially when big point of the setting is elite units being more durable - you really want scouts being identical to terminators?

The new system is garbage because it ruins all of the powerful, slow bricks, like meganob with klaw or terminator with fist. Either these now do bazillion attacks to be durable (and completely lose their feel, never mind fist will have comically low damage to compensate) or they can't hurt naked dude armed with two salad forks at all because he rolls more dice and just effortlessly parries said brick. Any bandaids (like fist being unparryiable) will just add complications and exceptions warping the system into a confusing mess.

This will also will be stupid buff for units that were always supposed to be glass cannons by making them indestructible in melee - imagine arco-flagellants and repentia losing their whole point and becoming best units in the game because they don't stupidly pay points for stat that is now useless (along with another stealth, comically stupid buff to DE and Harlequins making them doubly broken, especially that weapon adding a ton of extra attacks)

There is nothing stopping them putting a tough like roll on terminators and other war gear like shields.
This system is far more interesting for CC, Arco flagelent can have a all hits must be used as attacks USR.
Terminators can even have a they gain a free hit, that can only be used as a defence die and must be used first.

It’s why I said GW really kicking there own system without giving us some useful comparesson before. We need some units to see just what’s up.

The abstraction comes in the overall unit stats though. Power klaws should do lots of damage. You can represent in the rules either through lots of little bits of damage or a few big hits. Historically, klaws and fists have had big strength values but not a huge actual amount of damage, so I think you could spin either way to represent the ability of a Nob to slice up a target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The system might end up being garbage, but we don’t know and I’m willing to wait and see.

 Irbis wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Its all an abstraction, nothing really has to directly reflect these concepts. Everything gets mixed up into the melting pot of the mechanics and the end result either feels fitting or it doesn't.

I would say it looks more like shooting is at a normal level and they were finding that the mechanism of being able to block hits was leaving melee combat too weak in comparison and they needed to fix that somehow.

Generally you want melee to be more deadly because you have to account for the fact that you have to cover ground to get there and you are leaving yourself vulnerable too.

There were other options to do this other than just remove the armour saves, but we won't know if they've succeeded in making everything *feel* right until we see the various profiles.

I don't know why people use terribad argument 'it's just an abstraction'. Abstractions are not inherently bad, but when one pees all over realism and feel of the setting, it's gak abstraction. Especially when big point of the setting is elite units being more durable - you really want scouts being identical to terminators?

The new system is garbage because it ruins all of the powerful, slow bricks, like meganob with klaw or terminator with fist. Either these now do bazillion attacks to be durable (and completely lose their feel, never mind fist will have comically low damage to compensate) or they can't hurt naked dude armed with two salad forks at all because he rolls more dice and just effortlessly parries said brick. Any bandaids (like fist being unparryiable) will just add complications and exceptions warping the system into a confusing mess.

This will also will be stupid buff for units that were always supposed to be glass cannons by making them indestructible in melee - imagine arco-flagellants and repentia losing their whole point and becoming best units in the game because they don't stupidly pay points for stat that is now useless (along with another stealth, comically stupid buff to DE and Harlequins making them doubly broken, especially that weapon adding a ton of extra attacks)

I mean everything is an abstraction, so worrying about what's being represented by "wounds" or if there's an "armour roll" is a bit pointless because they are just abstract concepts trying to represent real life things.

Obviously you want tough things to feel tough, hth specialists to do well in hth etc - but judge things on the whole.

They could well have fouled it up royally, I just mean the lack of an armour roll doesn't automatically mean it is bad.

 Irbis wrote:
The new system is garbage because it ruins all of the powerful, slow bricks, like meganob with klaw or terminator with fist.

Again, neither of these things exist in the game so we have absolutely no idea how they will be handled if/when added.