40K: Melee vs Shooting In 8th Edition

When it comes to combat options who’s going to be the top dog in 8th Edition?

Games Workshop has provided us with a ton of teasers so far. They have talked about the movement, shooting, psychic powers, unit profiles and weapons, charges, and today they just teased the new “Fight phase” changes. It’s been a whirlwind of things to process and extrapolate out. But after today’s reveal, it’s hard not to wonder about one big question: What’s going to dominate combat in 8th, Shooting or Melee?

Looking Back

It was pretty clear in 7th that Shooting was KING. With Overwatch, random charge distances, D-weapons, Stomps and a bunch of other factors, armies that relied on getting into close combat to win the battle took a back seat. The Tau gunline in particular could be pretty devastating in the right circumstances (never forget those overlapping Overwatch with normal/almost normal BS shots). It seems like a lot of those ideas are still around in 8th with some tweaks thrown in.

Moving and shooting heavy weapons with a -1 seems to favor units with those big guns. I was just thinking how awesome it’s going to be to have a unit of Space Marine Devs walking around with Lascannons or Plasma-cannons. And how great it’s going to be to actually get to use my Heavy Bolter Tactical Marines to move-and-fire! But really, this benefits those gunline armies quite a bit. Why? Because now you can BACK-UP and SHOOT. Do you see the charge coming? Take a step back and blast away.

Moving Ahead

That said, I wouldn’t discount melee units just yet. There are a few things that are unclear. First and foremost, we don’t know how FAST a lot of these melee units will end-up being. We might see Hormagaunts with a 9″ move – or FASTER! That’s not going to leave those gunlines with a lot of room to fallback. Also, I was re-reading the movement article and GW says that the “Advance” move has been rolled into the movement phase:

“Running has been rolled into the Movement phase now, too. You can “Advance” when you move by rolling a dice and adding the result to your Movement to go a bit faster at the expense of shooting.”

The important part there is the “at the expense of shooting” part – it didn’t say anything about charging. And from the charging article, it says that you “an select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″.” It doesn’t mention any restrictions about “unless you advanced (ran) during your movement phase.”

Yes…keep going…I’m listening.

Melee units also only need to get within 1″ to engage an enemy now! And if they do, they get an additional 3″ move to follow-up with. That means, they could be 17″ away and still drag a unit into combat. How? Well, 12″ charge + 1″ engagement zone + 3″ follow-up move = 16″ right? Well that follow-up move means can get within 1″ of ANOTHER enemy unit for a total of 17″ of threat range. Oh and you’re charging so you swing first, before all other units.

This seems to be confusing a lot of folks. Let me just apologize – I got excited about the extra 3 inch “pile in” + 1 inch engagement range. Here’s the corrected diagram:

 

*Edit: Here’s a (crappy) diagram of what I’m trying to describe/illustrate.

Edit: The Black circle has declared a charge on the red circle (assume it’s part of a unit and they are in coherency). The Red unit is only 9″ away from the closest model. So the Black circle moves behind the Red Circle, but still within 1″. This is a legal charge. During the following “pile-in” move, the black circle moves 3″ closer to the blue circle, who ends within 1″ of the black circle and is now engaged in a combat that it was not expecting. You can pull this off with a unit that is large enough, and you’ll probably still need 1 model from the “Black” squad to remain engaged, but it’s possible to engage a unit that was 16″ away at the start of the phase – that’s all I’m trying to say. Threat Range and Charge distance are two different things.

Additional Edit: Here’s the quote from GW

“Units that activate gain a free 3″ move towards the closest enemy. This can be used to get within 1″ of other enemy units, if you’re cunning, dragging more foes into the melee and preventing them from shooting next turn, even if you didn’t charge them directly (giving them no chance to overwatch). Enemy gun lines will need to be careful about how they position their supporting units, so as to avoid getting dragged into the fight too.”

And I still didn’t add in their BASE move or the potential “advance” move either. In fact, lets just take away the movement phase altogether. If standard Tactical Marine starts the charge phase 12″ away from a unit, then you can still have a 16″ threat range! Do you have to get really, really lucky? Yeah, but I’ve seen it happen. You only need an 11 on the dice to make it into that first combat. You still get a 3″ follow-up and you still only need to be within 1″ to engage an enemy…

On top of all that, we STILL don’t know what the special rules will be for these unit’s movement will be. We don’t even know if other weapons will have restrictions on firing in Overwatch. Maybe heavy weapons are too cumbersome to fire in Overwatch – that could be a thing, we simply don’t know for sure. We also haven’t seen any of the close-combat weapons either. Who knows how deadly specialist close combat weapons will be!

What Comes Next

Now, I’m pretty Games Workshop has thought of all this already. They talked about in the Q&A sessions they tested the crap out of this game. We’re also getting a preview of how morale will work tomorrow. That could have a BIG impact on the deadliness of both shooting and close-combat. For now, it’s all just speculation – Personally, I’m looking forward to getting my hands on the actual rules so we can answer some of these questions for sure.

 

So what do you think? Will Close-Combat or Shooting reign supreme in 8th Edition? Why? Let us know in the comments below!

*We don’t know for sure how all the rules are written, but this is a possibility based on what GW has already said.

 

  • Walter Vining

    no. not 17 inches. you still have to be 12 away, and if you roll an 11 on your charge you are engaged because you only need to make it to 1″ away. then you get your 3″ pile in. its still 12″.
    nice try.

    • Maitre Lord Ironfist

      it is not clear atm. if you locked in Place or you can move the 2d6 – “You can select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″ ” i understand it, that you move the 2d6, then later you activate the units, wich then again can move 3″ – But still, they would not have charged so they might not go first as default.

      • Walter Vining

        you know what assuming does right?

        • Drpx

          Gets you a job in marketing at GW?

          • Walter Vining

            +12 internets. I didn’t see that coming.

          • ZeeLobby

            OH SNAP. LoL.

      • Brettila

        It’s just like AoS.

    • adamharry

      Yeah, for the unit you declare against.

      But not another unit you want to get into combat with.

      You can use the 3″ follow-up move to engage ANOTHER unit, and you only have to be 1″ away from them.

      So a unit could move 12″ and have a 1″ engagement zone. Then you when you do the 3″ consolidation, that’s 3 more inches toward another unit. you only have to get within 1″ of that other unit.

      It’s splitting hairs here, but you could bunny hop 17″ inches into combat with a unit you didn’t target for the charge.

      • MasterManipulator

        If it works like AOS the pile in will be towards the closest enemy model. If that is the case then you still may be limited.

        • adamharry

          that is very true – but you could still engage another unit with that 3″ follow-up move if they were the same distance apart or if you have you unit string you along.

          What if it’s a lateral move, too. What if a model in the unit is actually closer to the OTHER unit than the one you declared against? You could position them accordingly.

          Point is, we need to see how it’s actually worded.

          • BClement

            I get what you’re saying – but those are some extremely tough things to pull off.

            You’d have to roll high enough for the charge roll, you’d have to have enough models in the unit for a even just 1 of them to be closer to a different unit, and the enemy unit would have be be positioned offset or something close to it.

            It’s actually not that hard to do if your charging unit has enough models to make that happen. BUT, it’s not easy.

            It’s theoretically possible, but not very probable.

        • EnTyme

          Not quite. In AoS, you must end your pile-in closer to the closest model than when you started, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be TOWARD the closest model.

      • Walter Vining

        you assume you can.

      • Pedwidge

        16″ maximum threat on a charge. 12″ max on the charge, then 3″ consolidation with a 1″ threat range.

        • Koonitz

          My assault marines would, too. They’d love a guaranteed minimum 25″ charge, potential 30″. With the 1″ engagement, that’s a 31″ threat range.

          That doesn’t take into consideration any further 3″ pile-in.

          First turn charge guaranteed, with a “deep in enemy deployment zone” charge possible.

          No thank you. That’ll break the game further than anything people have even speculated.

          Assault/bike armies would be kings of the board within days of 8th Ed’s release.

          • deris87

            Charges are declared first thing in the Movement phase, problem solved.

          • Koonitz

            So your charge is effectively reduced to d6″ as the charge is in lieu of movement? I doubt people would be much happier…. After all, I’d rather have 2d6″ charge than 1d6″.

            If you mean it’s not in lieu of movement, you still have the same problem of a 12″ move, plus a 12+d6″ charge + 1″ engagement range giving you a minimum 26″ charge, exactly as I pointed out.

          • deris87

            Sorry, I should’ve elaborated more, I was thinking more like the 8th ed Fantasy system–M” + 2d6″ for charge range, and declared before any other Movement. It guarantees you don’t fail short charges, and gives a chance for longer charges than we see currently, but nothing as crazy as double move + d6″.

        • adamharry

          Yep – you’re right. fixed it in the article.

      • Valourousheart

        Why do you feel that you can move models in a charge move around the unit you are charging to get them closer to a unit you are not charging? Every rule set so far has required bringing as many models into base contact as possible with the target unit of the charge. And any models that can’t make it to base contact must end their move as close as possible to the target unit.

        Also why do you assume that your chargers will get an 3 inch activation move after their charge? Chargers attack immediately after their charge. It doesn’t make sense that they would get to activate after they have already attacked. It also doesn’t make sense that they would need to be activated between the charge move and their attacks, as they are already an activated unit.

    • The Rout

      not really, it clearly says you can pile in to subsequent combats which may be further than 12″ away. Not to mention it seems like you move forward the 2D6 regardless of whether you reach CC or not.

      • Walter Vining

        you assume you can move even if you fail combat. you know what assuming does don’t you?

        • The Rout

          haven’t you been burned by that exact question very recently 😛

          And arent you assuming that my assumption is incorrect? This could go on for a while…

          • Walter Vining

            im not assuming your assumption at all

          • The Rout

            I assumed you were…

          • Walter Vining

            DONT ASSUMING MY ASSUMPTIONS!

          • The Rout

            Assuming amuses me!

          • Walter Vining

            im going to assume you assumed that I cared about what amuses you

          • The Rout

            I was right in my first comment, this will take a while :p

          • Walter Vining

            im just going to assume where done here then

          • The Rout

            you assume correctly, but i assume we will be doing this again very soon 😀

          • Walter Vining

            wow. assuming that we will be doing this again. could you not assume anything anymore, its starting to get like a certain someone other than me that’s getting annoying. and I assume that you know who im talking about, if I assumed wrong, let me know.

          • The Rout

            you assumed correctly, assuming we are referring to the same guy. and both me and you and you have assumed many times now, i assume you me WE should stop assuming to be less like he who shall not be named… again.

          • Walter Vining

            I will assume mutual compliance to the accord of not naming he who shall not be named…again. At this point the only thing I am assuming is that you are part of the space wolves facebook page, and if you are not I shall assume that you are going to request to join so that we can resume our assuming there.

          • The Rout

            i am not actually, i dont use social media but i wasnt aware there was space wolf page so id be happy to make an exception. how do i join?

          • Walter Vining

            just look up the space wolves on facebook. if you have a smart phone you can get the facebook apps app and only use it for groups and op out of the larger portion of it.

          • The Rout

            I’ll do exactly that when i get home. wasnt aware you could opt out of the cat memes and pictures of other peoples breakfasts 😀

          • Walter Vining

            see what happens when you assume 😉

          • The Rout

            good things!

  • Karru

    Shooting is still the winner in this edition according to the current information.

    Assaults still rely on the 2D6″ charge which is very bad for them. It is actually one of the deciding factors why Assaulting isn’t as powerful as it could be. It is reeeeally bad for Assaulting units.

    Thus far Assaulting has received very little buffs. The Chargers hitting first is nice as well as the changes to ranges and such. Makes Multiple Assaults easier to manage.

    Shooting on the other hand has received major buffs in this edition. It was already ridiculously powerful, but now they wanted to make it even more so. Fleeing from an Assault without any real penalty is huge. Important unit got charged? Flee without risking your units demise.

    Heavy Weapons can now move and shoot without any major impact as well.

    Only neutral “buff” both sides received is the removal of templates. Assaulting units have harder time getting multiple charges as people can now blob their units farther away from each other instead of spreading out to avoid Templates. Meanwhile Assaulting units can do the same to maximise cover and LoS blocking when running towards the enemy.

    Overall, Shooting is still the king by a country mile. Assaulting is still too RNG based to be on equal level with Shooting. The random charge distances really hurts them. All they really had to do was make it Movement + D6. That would have been absolutely perfect and would’ve brought them to level with Shooting. Giving Chargers at least 5-6″ of guaranteed movement during the Charge would have been extremely smart.

    • Walter Vining

      shooting will always counter assault based armies. speed will always counter shooting based armies. its a fact of life. in the “shooting” edition where “melee” was dead (which I have seen that argument since 3rd) ive seen full melee armies do very well, and full shooting armies do very well. there is no winner or loser, its how you build and play.

      • Karru

        I actually didn’t see this to be the case in 5th. A melee army, even without fast elements, could fight a Shooty army on an equal ground. Neither side had any major advantage over the other. Shooting units had penalties if they tried to kite the enemy around and lost board control, and thus objectives, if they kept moving backwards. Meanwhile Assaulting Armies couldn’t just rush the enemy lines as they would get annihilated.

        I mostly miss the ability to take a mixed list. An army which incorporated both elements from shooting to assaulting. Problem is that these days going half-way means you are gimping yourself. Enemy can keep ignoring your Assault units as long as they are over 7″ away, then you can just unload on them. Only exception is when they are in a transport, you just pop that and watch them walk over to you.

        All those points wasted, instead of spending them on something that could take part in the fight, are now doing nothing but walking across the table waiting to be finished off.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      You have to ride out a turn of combat before you can fall back, and you can’t shoot after.

      • Karru

        Yes, but there should be a risk attached to falling back from combat. If you survive, it is not a choice to stay or leave, you leave because you can. If you know you are going to die in the next assault phase, you leave the combat so you can shoot the unit that charged you. This way you guarantee that you can at least do some damage, if not outright kill it, before they can charge you after wiping out your unit during your turn.

        You also want to deny your opponent the chance to shoot their pistols in their shooting phase. Once again, you leave combat to do that.

        The falling back should have a risk attached to it. A simple solution would be to make both players roll off and see who wins. If the player falling back wins, he just falls back. If the player falling back loses, he takes D6 Mortal Wounds and stays in combat.

        The problem is that there is no choice involved. If you ever face a situation where you wish to leave combat, which will be vast majority of them, you just leave. This is not good game design in any way.

        • Walter Vining

          there is a risk to falling back, you could not fall back enough, and not kill what charged you, and not you get charged again, or you fall back too far, and now your gun lines are exposed and able to be charged by other units coming down the pike.

          • Koonitz

            We don’t currently know the mechanics of falling back, right now. It is very possible there is much more to it than what we have been told. In fact, GW implied this very thing by saying “if you survive falling back” (I paraphrase, of course).

            We will have to wait and see what the full mechanic is.

          • Karru

            As far as I’ve understood it correctly, you can move your full movement value away from the enemy. So not being able to fall back enough won’t be a problem as surrounding in 40k is nigh impossible. Remember, you have to get more than 1″ away from an enemy unit to be no longer in combat.

            A unit that makes contact with your unit is either a Deathstar or a regular Assault unit. In case one, it will continue to murder so nothing changes. In case two, it will die. It will suffer during its travel towards the destination and then after the unit they charged is either dead or ran away, the enemy will not let it stay there unhindered.

            The problem is that Falling Back has to have AN ACTUAL RISK to the unit that does the falling back. Why is the enemy suddenly “oh, they are stepping back, well better let them go lads”? No, they should damage them as they run away, finish of the stragglers.

            I don’t understand why you would be against it this much. What would be the real harm of forcing people to make a choice between staying in combat or possibly risking losing the unit in one swoop?

          • Walter Vining

            why do you assume im against it? I don’t know the full text so im not going to assume anything or make statements about it until I know more. Its the sensible and reasonable thing to do.

          • Walter Vining

            Didn’t you miss the good news, death stars are pretty much dead.

          • Karru

            Some deathstars at least. It was mentioned with alongside the Keyword change, so it most likely meant Deathstars throu allies. Daemons might be able to pull off something still, but probably not.

          • Walter Vining

            we shall see. but with the new on morale today I don’t think death stars will be viable at all.

    • Haighus

      Shooting has also received some major nerfs on a basic level- this is twofold. Weapons have worse armour penetration by two levels, and cover is now an additional modifier onto armour. Armour means more now. Orks are getting saves where before they were not- potentially decent ones with cover. The same applies for Guard and other low-save units. Even lascannons don’t ignore a lot of armour outright, especially with cover. This is going to make units more durable across the board. The only way shooting has got more scary in damage output is for multiwound models, which can take several wounds at once from powerful weapons.

      It is looking like shooting is becoming more mobile, but less dangerous. When we see the melee profiles we can confirm this, but I think melee weapons are going to be more dangerous in comparison to shooting profiles, especially considering they will almost certainly not be affected by cover. This means that melee will probably be more likely to cause casualties than shooting.

      It really seems like people are ignoring this, but as a Guard player, having a third more of my Guardsmen survive Boltgun fire in the open makes a huge difference to their staying power, and therefore their options (they don’t have to rely on cover anywhere near so much).

      • Koonitz

        Yes and no. If you look at the math, and make the following assumption, cover is only improving survivability for units that already have heavy armour that would normally not be ignored by most firepower (ie: 3+ or better).

        The assumption being that light cover (currently 5+) grants +1 armour and heavy (currently 4+) grants +2.

        An Ork with a 6+ save would get +1 with light cover, granting him a 5+ save against no AP weapons, identical to what light cover currently grants. He would get a 4+ in heavy cover, again, identical.

        The moment you add AP to the mix, his save is immediately reduced to below what he would have gotten. Let’s assume a heavy bolter is AP -1. That weapon that the ork would have a 4+/5+ save is now getting a 5+/6+ save, one WORSE than what he is getting in 7th Ed.

        A Marine, on the other hand, would get no save against a LasCannon, or a 4+/5+ in appropriate cover. With the above assumptions, and the AP -3 we know LasCannons have, he’d get a 6+ save in the open against said LasCannon, or a 4+/5+ in appropriate cover. Identical, with superior survivability in the open.

        Against no AP, the Marine now gets a 2+ save (assume 1’s always fail) instead of their normal 3+ (as it is superior to any cover). In light cover, you’d need AP-2 to even reduce the marine past his 3+ save. This exaggerates further with a base 2+ save.

        As such, the ork is actually quite worse off, whereas the Marine is quite better off, with the new cover and AP system.

        • Haighus

          The Ork is better off in the open though, as it requires formerly AP4 weapons to ignore the save. This allows for more options. Yeah, it is only a 6+ save, but if a 6th more Orks are surviving in the open that is still good. There are a lot of Bolters and similar weapons out there, and not many Heavy bolters (although there could be more).

          I think better survivability in the open is the general trend. Considering how often units are forced to be in the open, this is a buff to survivability. Especially when considering the Fall back option from combat- if the unit assaulted was not in cover (which some people will try to engineer to increase the effectiveness of the counter fire), then the unit is now more survivable. If it is in cover, it is as survivable, or a bit less with higher AP weapons.

          Also, I am not so sure Marines will get a 2+ save with cover. This is the sort of thing where I feel a save will not be able to be improved beyond 3+ or something, so that all cover does for Marines is negate AP. However, this is pure speculation.

      • Simon Bates

        I agree, we obviously don’t know yet, but it seems likely that shooting will be good for weakening the enemy, but rarely decisive enough to wipe out whole units (except when heavily concentrated). You’re going to have to pump very serious firepower into 2+ 2W terminators (and that’s not allowing for any other defensive rules they may have) in a world where even a Lascannon only has a -3 AP. Even Orks and Guardsmen in the open will be getting saves against small arms fire. With dedicated melee units generally hitting on a 3+, probably with multiple attacks and quite likely with weapons which have AP values or other special abilities, Assaults could be much more decisive.

      • Karru

        Koonitz answered this one well.

        I noticed you forgot how much cover gives now and how much it will most likely give in the next edition. Thus far we can assume it’s going to be majority +1 to save and in same “rare” cases a +2. This gives Boys, a 5+/4+ save depending. Orks used to get a 5+ save as a base or 4+ depending on the terrain. So no changes there, but here’s the thing, anything that modifies that will make it worse. So instead of ignoring the 6+ save of the Boys and getting a 5+ or a 4+ save, they now either get a 5+/6+/none save against those shooting attacks. Meanwhile Marines are hopping with joy as they are almost guaranteed to have a 2+ save no matter where they are. Depending on how modifiers work exactly and which is calculated first, to reduce the save of Marines to 4+ would require -2/-3 weapons.

        Guardsmen and Tyranids have slightly better luck. Having a 4+ or possibly a 3+ save from cover is nice, but they will still go to same or worse save than what they get now.

        The current Cover System favours High Armour Save models while those with Low Armour Save suffer.

        • Haighus

          Units outside of cover are much better off though, and there are less weapons that modify armour. Small arms, the bulk of any armies shooting, have been reduced in damage output.

          I feel like the changes are making units rely less on cover, and be more mobile.

      • Nightwalker

        Yeah, as we can see, it seems like many shooting weapons will be Rend 0. My bet is most of the assault weapons will have Rend 1 or better, thus giving us a trade off between shooting and assault

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    This is going to be a shooty edition. Assaulty armies are going to need lots of fast moving assault units to be successful, I think.

    • orionburn

      I’m all for keeping things shooty, but really want to see the assault phased put on steroids for a bit. I’m finding the whole thing clunky as it seems that it requires touching/moving your models even more now, but the jury is still out until we have all the info. Maybe assault units will get a buff in their movement to help balance things out.

    • Karru

      That’s what worries me. It once again forces certain armies and playstyles on people. You can’t do a Green Tide or a Tyranid Swarm effectively. You HAVE to go with Trukks and Bikes with Orks while Tyranids weep unless Hormagaunts get some major buffs on their speed, which is doable due to the movement characteristic.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah. That’s my conclusion so far as well. Of course I’ve already been yelled at as wrong, so maybe I am haha. Apparently AoS is a shooting game, and yet melee does alright (apart from gun-lines also admittedly being an issue in AoS)

    • Ironheaded Painting

      Depends on what GW allows with Transports.

  • if i catch you measuring front-to-back like that during a game you’re going to have a bad time…

    • adamharry

      Hah, that’s fair, but the math is there. And I don’t think I drew the diagram to scale…

    • BClement

      wait – I’m not seeing where he measured front to back…also it is a crappy diagram lol.

      • ZeeLobby

        LoL. True, but it’s also a bad representation of actual distance because it’s front to back, haha. Would have probably been worth the extra time to fix that.

  • Nyyppä

    It’s another age of leafblowers. Guns win this edition according to rules. Unit entries might change that though.

    • Fergie0044

      Guns win this edition according to (the small sample of) rules.

      Just though your statement needed this added.

      • Nyyppä

        Well, the one critical one is there. You can not hide the hard hitters in combats. That literally makes or breaks the combat, in this care breaks.

        • Fergie0044

          True – that one rule is a big change and big nerf for close combat only guys. But there might be other big changes yet to come. I don’t think we know enough yet to start making grand sweeping statements about the entire edition.

          • Nyyppä

            It is possible. Not likely though.

        • Koonitz

          And yet, one other critical factor that may make assault more viable, the ability to charge out of transports, out of deep strike, or out of other types of reserve (regular/outflank), is currently an unknown factor.

          Right now, so many people are complaining that the ability to break free from combat is going to break assault armies, but what if it’s not about keeping shooting in the limelight as much as giving shooting a fighting chance against a heavy deep strike or outflank assault. If these things are possible, the exact opposite would very likely occur. Assault armies would break gunline armies over their knees, unless they can break from combat, which, surprise, looks like it might balance that very thing.

          We simply don’t know enough, and everyone’s trying to fill in the holes with 7th Ed ideology, which just isn’t working.

          • Nyyppä

            None of hose unknowns can fix the one thing that’s wrong.

            I agree that making assaults too good would be a stupid move too. It’s not a binary though.

          • Lumanil

            There is one little UNKNOWN thing that will fix the wrong.
            We still don’t know the drawback when breaking from combat. We still have this “if you survive falling back” posted by GW. So, if the unit trying to fall back gets 2D6 mortal wounds or the enemy gets some attacks for free and gets a 2nd charge into the next unit, would change everything.
            So lets wait till we have the full rules.

          • Nyyppä

            Actually we do know. We know that the unit can do nothing else during that turn. That is the drawback.

  • Bellumvinco

    Did I see something about a massive Khorne invasion on here in the last couple of days? 8th edition Khorne ftw.

    • Koonitz

      One of GW’s more recent articles talked about Warzone: Armageddon, where they mentioned that a Khornate expeditionary fleet was on its way. You may be thinking of this.

  • Matt Razincka

    Briefly noted in the article, but I notice they specify you can’t SHOOT after and advance, but nothing about charging. If you can advance and then charge, it could be very good for assault armies.

    • Karru

      And? You could do that in the current edition as well. Running was done in the Shooting Phase instead of the Movement Phase. Assaulting is still done in its own phase after Shooting. Nothing new.

      • Matt Razincka

        And that bodes well for assaulting enemies. Don’t be a dick.

        • Karru

          I was just commenting on the fact that this was nothing new so nothing has changed so things weren’t going good or bad in that sense.

          • Matt Razincka

            You didn’t even read it right. I said ADVANCE. Not MOVE. Currently you can MOVE then assault. I’m saying ADVANCE as in M+D6 then assault.

          • Karru

            Oh….

            My bad….

            I seriously didn’t read that part correctly.

      • Djbz

        Only very rarely can a unit run and charge in the same turn in the current edition.
        It would be a help for those that can’t if they allowed it now.

        • Karru

          It would indeed. Getting that D6″ more would be a nice boon to Assault armies. Especially if they give things that got to do that in the earlier editions extra charge movement, something like +3″ for boys that are WAAAAGH!!-ing.

  • AEZ

    It’s all speculation. -1 to hit isn’t nice if the weapon already has something inbuild with a – to hit modifier. If you usually hit on 5+ hitting on 6+ kinda sucks 😀

  • EnTyme

    Things I have learned from reading forums and comments about 8th edition:
    1) Shooting armies will be OP
    2) Assault armies will be OP
    3) This will be the most balanced edition yet
    4) This is the most horribly broken edition yet
    5) All current Space Marine armies will be obsolete with the NuMarines
    6)NuMarines are just an elite unit option for Imperium armies.
    Thanks for clearing things up, internet.

    • Omnia Incendent

      you forgot,
      -1) 8th edition will be nothing like AOS
      and
      0) 8th edition will borrow heavily from AOS

      • Simon Bates

        To be fair, those two aren’t as contradictory as they appear. It’s already apparent that there will be many commonalities between the two games – M values, ap/rend, random charges, (probably) the morale system, mortal wounds, very similar psychic/magic systems. But that doesn’t mean they will play the same as there are already clearly some key differences, like unit profiles (especially S+T values), shooting into and out of melee, range on melee weapons (though I may be wrong about that), damage allocation, charge benefits and overwatch.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yup. And some of these will be true, and others won’t. Cookie time?

  • Fergie0044

    I should start a business selling reinforced umbrellas – everyone seems to think the sky is falling!

    • Karru

      I was thinking of selling Gasoline, matches and camera stands.

      Maybe a dual business?

      • Graham Bartram

        I’m going to need popcorn too. Don’t forget the popcorn.

    • ZeeLobby

      Definitely not falling, but it will be different.

      • Walter Vining

        oh no, its falling. and falling hard.

        • ZeeLobby

          Haha. Guess it depends if you wanna play Age of Emprah

          • Walter Vining

            im ok with playing a better edition of 40k. Age of Logan Grimnar is going to be great! #make30k8thagain

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah… I guess there’s just so many other games out there. It now needs to be not just better, but good, lol. We’ll see. AoS honestly hasn’t appealed to me that much, not sure 40K’s AoSing will do it for me either. I might play an occasional game again tho.

  • AircoolUK

    You don’t get the 3″ Pile-in move unless you’re engaged in close quarters. So your maximum charge range is 12.9 inches.

    Not quite sure how you managed to get 17″, but I can see how the pile in can bring another unit into close combat if that unit was close to the charged unit.

    • adamharry

      It’s in the article.

      You max CHARGE distance is still 12″ – you actually can’t declare a charge if the unit is farther an 12″ away.

      Your threat range is 17″ – Threat range and charging are different.

      You can use the extra 3″ of movement to pull in a DIFFERENT unit from your charge target into combat. If you consider the extra 1″ engagement range that you can use on both sides you can pull an otherwise obvious unit in that was 17″ away from where your unit started.

  • Adam

    It’s my birthday in a few days, and I was happily scanning for some new Codexes as I love reading them endlessly and writing 40K stories inspired by them. But they are all being pulled from sale by the GW as they are “not compatible” with the upcoming rules. So everything I’ve spent a fortune on so far is now obsolete and I probably won’t even be able to sell any of it, and will need to fork out more for the new generation of stuff. Well, enough is enough. Good job GW, you finally turned me against you. EDIT: Apologies for not being relevant but whatever.

    • Muninwing

      you know that they have been cycling codices out since 2nd ed, right? nothing new there.

      it was always part of their business model to sell the most current rules, not an eternal ruleset.

      if you have bought any recently, they have made a statement about paying you back for them — there’s a way of claiming your refund. but it’s only within the last few months, since anything older than they they’ve figured you have used (in one way or another) — which is more than they ever used to give.

      it’s frustrating, but nothing new. if this is what has turned you against them, i’m surprised they weren’t already turned after 6th into 7th had the fastest codex turnovers

      • Karru

        Well, this time its slightly different. You could still play the game with your old book, so even if you didn’t update, you could still play it against your friends for example or even opponents that allowed you to play your old book.

        They are now invalidating all the books. You cannot use them in the next edition. This is the factor that causes many people to get really angry towards GW.

        • Nyyppä

          You can still play the old editions….

        • Walter Vining

          and you know they are putting out rules for all of the minis on day on FOR FREE

          • Koonitz

            Sadly, that’s not true. They’ve confirmed they are releasing the core rules for free, and all models will be released in compendiums for, effectively, dirt cheap.

            We don’t know the details, but I suspect it will be “Imperium”, “Chaos”, “Xenos”. They have said these compendiums will be smaller than current codices and, as such, cheaper than said codices.

            Not free, however.

          • Walter Vining

            they said that the rules needed to play the game will be free at launch. that includes rules for the models doesn’t it? or can we just make stuff up and do what we want?

          • Koonitz

            In 7th Ed, the rules needed to play the game would be contained within the rulebook.

            From there, you would want to choose which army you wish to play and obtain the rules needed to play that army.

          • Walter Vining

            wait…..so all the rules to play the game WERENT in the rule book and you had to obtain another book in order to play the game. So when they said all the rules to play the game at launch will be free that includes 100% of the rules that you would need to play the game right?

        • Muninwing

          but it’s needed at this point.

          i actually admire what they tried to do in 6th/7th: update every book. they left out one or two critical aspects of this, but they for the most part did a good job in that era (before the warzone books’ mediocre writing started butting in) refreshing what people already loved about their armies.

          but some were clearly less enthused than others. Ork and Nid players felt like they got the shaft again. DE players howled about the invalidation of their completely anti-fluffy common builds. that’s kind of a big deal… since they no longer felt playable despite new toys and new refreshers.

          it all boils down to balance and points.

          half of balance — the “restrict options” version — went away when there were zero penalties for over-formationing.

          the other half has always been deliberately neglected, that of a fair and adequate points-determining algorithm. some of the senior designers (jervis most vocally) have essentially determined that such balance does not matter.

          i’m hoping the “command points” design they are coming out with will help with the options.

          but if they want to clean house and do points right, they have to do them all at once. if they can do that, they’ll have some serious success with creating a far more balanced and fair game.

          • Karru

            I totally agree on the need to invalidate. They seriously needed to clean the slate for this edition, now we just have to hope for two things; GW tested out all the armies properly and that they won’t leave any faction to rot when it comes to new releases, mostly books.

            Both of those are yet to be seen.

      • Koonitz

        This wasn’t always the case, and wasn’t always as clear cut as “use the older book”. For instance, the move to the new psychic phase rendered all older edition’s psykers obsolete. Sure, you could still use them, but they don’t play nice at all, with the new rules. How would your new book psykers play against theirs? How do you deny the witch when they aren’t generating warp charge or using warp charges to manifest powers?

        However, you’re absolutely right that new editions changed rules, causing you to have to buy the new books. This is standard practice and should come as absolutely no surprise. In fact, the cost of codices was such a big gripe because people liked to buy all the codices in previous editions (both for the cool lore and to know the rules). In 6th/7th, they became so expensive that it was impractical to do so, and people griped about that.

        Now, you have the entire rule-set being invalidated in an attempt to rebuild the game from the ground up to make it more balanced and quick to play, with less rules bloat. In so doing, it became clear they would not be able to retain any older army rules. So, instead, they promised to release new rules for EVERY army on day one. That has NEVER happened since 3rd Ed, when I started.

        They’ll be released in compendiums (likely broken down as “Imperium”/”Chaos”/”Xenos” or something similar. They’ve promised that these compendiums will be smaller than our current full codices, and as such, cheaper.

        It’s a big deal and they’re handing it very well. It’ll be a lot easier to move on to 8th Ed than it has been for any previous edition.

        • Simon Bates

          Incidentally I’m curious how the compendia will break down. My guess is Imperium, Astartes, Chaos, Aeldari, Xenos.

      • AircoolUK

        Usually, people are biting at the bit for a new codex. Count yourself lucky that there’s new stuff on the way.

        At least with the release of the new game, all unit profiles and what-not will be available for free.

        • Someone

          Will they? I keep seeing people parroting this line, but all I saw was that the core rule book is free and a series of five books are coming out day one updating every army and including the expanded rules for the three ways to play.

          Which is fine with me, they’ve gone five editions without invalidating the full codex set, it’s due for a full revamp.

        • Muninwing

          yeah, i would consider this a good move on their part — and one they have never made before.

          not a reason to ragequit.

          the best part is that i won’t sell an army (DE) that hasn’t been updated in two editions, only to have it get a new book and new models six months later.

          GW has been trying to fix their business model for about three years now. some of their moves have been really bad (the debut of AoS). some of them have been exactly what people have asked for, and made people upset for different reasons — like the increase of codex releases. we’ll see how this turns out.

    • Walter Vining

      So you get the new rules for the stuff on day one for free. what’s the issue?

    • Parthis

      … so you bought codices for the fluff, and you’re upset that the rules portion is being phased out…

      … umm…

      OK.

  • Cecilia Wayne

    People are saying it is a shooter edition without having the profiles or the point costs for the ranged weapons they fear so much. They are fools at best, crybabies at worst… Imagine Scatter laser with streng 5 3 shots and 24 inch range for the same price perhaps, who knows ?? Grav with 30k like rules ?? Many parameters may balance range and melee, stop prophetizing doom for melee based on nothing u fools

  • Drew_Da_Destroya

    The extra 3″ seems to just be for units that you “Activate” during the Assault phase. The chargers seem to go outside of that “Activation”, in that they go first. You may not actually get both charge movement and the 3″ consolidation on a turn you charge.

    • Koonitz

      The 3″ ‘move’ is identical to our current 3″ pile-in that units in assault get on their initiative step in 7th Edition. The only difference is that NOW you can come within 1″ of an unengaged enemy unit in an attempt to engage them, whereas in 7th, you can’t.

      That’s it. People trying to read more into it as some sort of new thing that can do wonderous, amazing things should really stop.

  • Roman Himmelhan

    Exploits like this are the reason why i started to feel uncomfortable at bigger games outside of our gaming group. Honestly, you declare a charge because you want to charge someone. But while doing so, you realize there’s a rainbow-pooping unicorn behind that unit, so you decide to hook up with that one… and yeah, since you’ve been so eager to charge the first guy, you’ll use your extra moment to get closer… to the unicorn instead. yeah, of course.

    “… a free 3” move towards the closest enemy”. Of course, this can’t mean the unit you have charged originally. Like if that was the closest enemy… pffft

    Oh, by the way, codex demonhunters, 3rd (/4th) edition, there you could use the psycannon to ignore any saves that your adversary had. If you simply didn’t read the weapon’s profile at the last page but instead just followed the fluff writing, you could claim that the weapon would ignore any safe, including the ++.
    Well, some idiots simply read the profile and said that it would ignore simply the ++, but not the normal safe, but hey, what would the game be like if we followed the simple rules…

  • SprinkKnoT

    I have a feeling they aren’t going to change the pile in rules about having to end closer to the closest enemy model. AoS uses that system and it’s to prevent these kind of situations.

  • Mykel

    “Units that activate gain a free 3″ move towards the closest enemy. This can be used to get within 1″ of other enemy units, if you’re cunning, dragging more foes into the melee…”
    So in the above example, you wouldn’t get your super ninja leap, as the blue guy ain’t the closest unit… with some tricksy model placement, maybe?

    • SprinkKnoT

      In AoS there are some tricky tactics where say you’re half an inch a way from your closest enemy model. You can use that 3″ to move around the model and end up 1/4″ way on the opposite side of the model. But yeah, the diagram shown wouldn’t be valid pile in.

      • Mykel

        Ah, kind of like sling-shotting models past the initial target unit and then using coherency to engage that second unit.

  • Vachones

    So many things we don’t know yet, its way too early to judge how viable melee will be in 8th edition. At best we can qualify our statements with “at this time” or “based on what we know,” but I fail to see the point in drawing any conclusions much less arguing with limited facts.

    We don’t know how strong melee weapons versus shooting weapons will be. We don’t know if there will still be limitations on assaulting after deep strike or outflanking or scouting or from vehicles. We don’t know unit rules, formations, army rules, or how command points work. We just don’t know.

  • Chuck

    I, for one, think the big winner in 8th Edition is Speculation. Particularly, very specific speculation about how shooty and/or knifey armies are the big winners in a rules set we don’t have yet.

    I hope that in all the thinking and testing and feedback-receiving, GW figured that both shooty and knifey units should work, and that maybe all-shooty armies should work, and all-knifey armies should work, and maybe armies with some shooty and some knifety should work. Because I think we’d all like that.

    • Vachones

      Well said, Speculation is going to give us hundreds of articles and thousands of comments and forum posts, its going to do really well for itself.

  • Lunatic_4

    Except that you’re diagram is against the rules of the GW quote: “Units that activate gain a free 3″ move towards the closest enemy.” – How is the blue circle that is 4″ away the “closest enemy” when the red circle is 1″ away?

    While I don’t doubt that occasionally you may be able to pile into a new enemy, I don’t think it is likely.

    I assume they’ll reword the rule to be closest enemy to the model rather than closest enemy to the unit, otherwise, multi-assaulting would be impossible because you’re unit would be within 1″ of your initial target but further than 1″ away from other targets and thus, by the initial wording, your unit could only move towards your initial target as the closest enemy.

  • Marco Marantz

    random running distance is dumb. If you are forgoing a turn of shooting to, in effect, run, you should be moving your normal move distance. If they really wanted to minimize unnecessary die rolling, just set fixed run distances, possibly a function of the units standard move….its not hard.
    PS pretty sure the first guy still has to melee it into base contact

  • Nocturus

    This seems to make the assumption you can move through an enemy model. When was the last time that was legal?