No they don´t (enemy´s BS&WS). Ballistic skill makes sense, because unless the enemy can control wind, weight and gravity (and this would only work for physical bullets, not laser for example) it only depends on the firer whether the bullet hits. Not so much so with WS, as diferent enemies will fight differently, but I think this was just made to simplify the game. I quite like it tough, it never made sense to me that it you had 50 say gretchings (low WS) against say a hive tyrant (high WS) the hive tyrant, even it it took him(it/her) many turns to finish off the squad, he´d still do. And IRL it doesn´t matter how skilled you are that you´ll loose against 50 oponents. Even if you have 4 arms . And no, the profile strength is only used in CC or in strength tests. For shooting you use the weapon´s strengh. Which means that if any bonus is granted it´ll only be from the weapon´s strengh. (that´s what makes sense to me though, I know nothing of this having been confirmed) Gw said that there would be two kind of wounds, normal wounds, with normal saves, and mortal wounds, with no saves whatsoever allowed
I meant purely the attacker's WS & BS, though I would also love a way for the defender to influence it, albeit not to the point where a strong fighter can just take on hordes of weaker enemies without any real problem. Basicly something similar to armor versus strength, but less extreme. And good, strength bonusses on a ranged weapon are kinda silly. And sigh.. I hate mortal wounds.. though it should still be less bad than AoS in this regard I think.
As said at the very beginning... ahahahah LOL. Well, in the end, AoS was a great benefit for fantasy, so I hope 40K will improve its diffusion.
Looking at things from your pov, put it this way. AoS is simpler, and many new players are buying fantasy armies. Once they're into the hobby, if your local store support also OldHammer, it's far easier to lure them into play also napolonic-style.
Harder to master than WFB? I was agreeing with you... but now... prepare for the thread conversation to spiral hilariously off topic hahaha
So far the only thing I'm uncertain about is the Psychic phase. Aside from the piss-poor scalability of it and some broken as hell powers I quite liked the 40k7th ed Psychic phase. A few adjustments to how witchfire spells worked, how Warp Charges are generated and used, and a simpler dispel mechanic would have been great. That said, I liked Psykers even when it was just a flat leadership test so who knows - I'll probably still use a lot of Sorcerers. One thing I've noticed is a lot of things people were moaning about have actually been addressed. "Waah waah monstrous creatures are too strong and vehicles are bad". Ok, well now all vehicles have the same stats as MCs. "Keep strength and toughness! I hate static rolls", fine they stay (something I'm happy about actually). "Make leadership matter again" so now Space Marines are Ld7 and from what I hear most things are actually susceptible to leadership. Details haven't been leaked yet, so I'm still wary of exactly what that means "The Psychic phase takes too long and is OP". Well now it's going to take about 30 seconds. How "OP" it is remains to be seen and depends on what powers we get. Again, a bit unsure about this myself but we'll see. "Lascannons and other low-shot/high-strength weapons don't do anything". Variable damage stat, freaking amazing! Yes, a massive laser beam that is designed to punch holes through battletanks should do more than 1 point of damage per shot. This opens up a lot of possibility for dedicated anti-armour weapons and could see the end of "master of all trades" weapons like Grav cannons and scatter lasers. "Heavy weapons on infantry suck" well they don't suck so much now that you can move and shoot with them! I can't wait to actually field heavy bolters - I've always loved the model but they have major issues getting in range of anything useful in the current edition. I really feel like this edition is the first time in as long as I can remember where customer feedback has been taken into consideration. To the people complaining about static to-hit rolls, we pretty much already have that. How often has BS6 or more actually affected your games? In combat you're usually hitting on a 3+ or 4+ in most cases anyway so I don't see the big deal of making it a set roll. Hell, if anything it adds some variability that's pretty uncommon in assault. Especially skilled heroes and combat specialists could hit on 2+, big bulky weapons that pack a punch could hit on 5+. Barely functioning masses of pulsating flesh could hit on 6+. Maybe the "Unweildy" rule becomes -1 to hit instead of a "Strike last" mechanic. I like this change. Assault overall? Remains to be seen really. Charging hasn't changed a lot aside from having to be within 1" of the enemy instead of base to base. Initiative stat is gone so I expect something similar to the AoS alternating fighting with this "chargers strike first" bonus tossed in. I HOPE assault is good. I've always had an aggressive mid-to-close range play style and love getting my chainswords dirty. Overall the thing that appeals to me the most is simplification. The last game of 40k I played was 800pts and it took nearly 2 hours. I wouldn't say I'm a veteran of 7th edition but I'm not new to the game and neither is my opponent. We were testing out units we weren't overly familiar with and he was toying with one of the new detachments from Fall of Cadia but what we expected to be a quick game lasted much much longer than it should have because of the complexity of the units we were using. Compared to earlier editions (4th and 5th come to mind) it was just LONG. I have a wife and young daughter, and spend roughly 4 hours total on the train each day commuting for work. Time is valuable to me, and I don't get a lot of it to invest in gaming. 2 hours for an 800pt game between fairly experienced players is just plain silly, and to me it isn't worth it. So bring on 8th edition. Bring on 3 ways to play. Bring on "Grand Alliance" style factions, I'm sick of having so many books! /endrant
Guardsmen that set ambushes live shorter than guardsmen that just fight on the frontline - the commissar
I just see one problem with assault, and that´s the draw back rule. Armies that rely on shooting will just be able to bait the enemy into position, then fall back and annihilating them with everything they´ve got behind. I haven´t seen the rules though, but it´s one thing I can see happening. In my opinion this will just make CC-based armies very very uncompetitive. But on the other hand, that what actually happens on real life. Modern wars don´t see a lot of hand to hand combat If you´re ever asked to join a Wh fantasy army, stay on the front rank, as it is always the ones behind who die first
In fairness, real armies also don't field space marines that can take canonshells to the face and not really be bothered.... They should make sure CC-based armies remain competitive. If only because once those stop being competitive you rapidly end up in a situation where CC-troops become nigh on useless, except for countering that 1 specific tactic that wrecks hell on an army that doesn't have them. And those kind of situations tend to not be fun as you now have a unit that's kind of useless but you are mandated to take to deal with that 1 cheese strategy.... Also, in general armies are more fun if various approaches can result in a good army.
So the "Fight Phase" has been released. From the looks of it combat will work exactly the same as in AoS, with 3" pile-in moves and alternating which player strikes, but with one key difference (that I can spot anyway): Units that charge strike first before any other units fight. It's said that there will be some weapons and abilities that can strike out of order but that's not too bad in my opinion. Hell I use so many power axes and power fists I'll be happy just to be able to swing before dying! @Jorgik made a good point about the voluntary fall back baiting assault units into unfavorable positions. At the moment it doesn't look like there's a way to avoid this, but I think it wouldn't be out of the question to see some rules or wargear come into play later on that will "lock" units in for the long haul (although I doubt it would be commonplace). Does this make shooting better than assault? Probably. It already is though, and this adds a new aspect to the game I haven't explored before so I don't really mind. In practice though, it will probably give me the shits and make me hate Tau even more than I do already.
Yeah, I'm worried about how fallback will effect things. My genestealers are not going to like that tactic. But I hopeful that things will be more balanced between shooting and close combat. I've always loved close combat in my wargames. The increased emphasis on shooting and the loss of a viable assault game was a big part of the reason I dropped 40k for WHFB a few years ago. I have a lot of fond memories of my hordes of hormagaunts and genestealers swarming over my opponents in a tidal wave of claws and fangs in 3rd, 4th, and 5th eds. We'll see what happens in 8th.
I played 'Nids in 3rd, Dark Eldar Wych spam in 4th, and have been combat-oriented Chaos Space Marines from late 4th edition until now. I love me some stabbin'! My all time favourite game ever was when my screamer killer carnifex (the "murder egg") chopped through 3 dreadnaughts in succession, and my Hormagaunt swarm forced an Assault Marine unit with Librarian to fall back through a forest. Anyone who survived the stab-hands of my 'gaunts crashed headfirst into trees. No survivors. Good times!