8e - Cities of Death

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/22/new-warhammer-40000-cities-of-death-may22gw-homepage-post-4gw-homepage-post-4/

So definitely Scourges and Hellions will get the Fly keyword. I love the new mechanics for grenades in CoD!

I hope that the 'fire in the hole' rule applies to other blast/template weapons as well, as it will be very nice for flushing heavy infantry out of cover.

I'm not exactly *against* rules like this.
I like that they're putting a new emphasis on infantry and my jumping Scourges potentially breaking an ankle when landing in ruins always struck me as ridiculous.
The game is simplified in a number of ways and I'm generally very positive about everything I've read. I'm one that said 7th was unplayably broken and needed to be burned down and rebuilt. I think they've done it.

Now these rules are the very first that have me rolling my eyes and thinking they've learned almost nothing at all. These strike me as more rules for the sake of rules. A new thing to remember that makes it a game within a game.
But I'm not immediately too heavily judgemental. I like terrain that actually does something interesting and unique - this could be no more excessive than that.

I have my eyes squinty and I'm looking at this reveal with a sidelong glance. Like looking at that punk nine year old kid that's playing too rough next to my toddler in the young kid section of the play structure.

Another thing I never really understood in seventh about the scourge is why they weren't relentless ... It would make sense given their fluff ... But I do like the no escape rule ... Now we can use plasma grenades for more then just not suffering penalties for charging o.o ( even though in 8th that is gone) plasma the weak Monkeih then clean up the ones that managed to survive in the rules via assault ...

These past two releases have only really talked about special game modes. If it doesn't correspond to tournament play I don't care, I can make up better rules myself. That's an interesting decision to take on ruins though. I was wondering how they were going to work them in this edition. But now what about going to ground, is that still a thing?

If going to ground is still a thing (I certainly hope it is, I liked having the choice) then I would imagine it would cause a -1 Hit modifier. What the appropriate penalty would be is open to guesswork, although I doubt it is that different from previous editions.

The only thing with these rules is that GW seems to be going the way of cover=armour, so things that are hard to hit will now have armour save bonuses instead of a negative to-hit modifier.

wormfromhell wrote:

The only thing with these rules is that GW seems to be going the way of cover=armour, so things that are hard to hit will now have armour save bonuses instead of a negative to-hit modifier.

I think I remember reading somewhere that there would actually be 2 types of cover, Ruins and the like would be one type that would improve a unit's armor save. The other type would be things like Trees and Smoke Launchers that would inflict a negative hit modifier on enemy shooting, since they are obscuring rather than shielding the unit in cover. That is why I suggested that going to ground (if it is still a thing it might not be) might be the hit modifier since you're not making an cover thicker you're just presenting the foe with a smaller target (hence a hit modifier is appropriate). A hit modifier would also stack better with other cover because the way it works now it is easy for many units (cough marines) to get a 2+ armor. Going to ground granting a hit modifier would be more helpful if a heavily armored unit goes to ground already in cover. But I am getting way too into this considering it is just speculation.

That would be nice but a 4+ cover save is actually better than a -1 to hit modifier. Unless we're playing against Orks.

So both (+1 Armour or -1 to hit) would be worse than what we got now.

Tounguekutter wrote:

wormfromhell wrote:

The only thing with these rules is that GW seems to be going the way of cover=armour, so things that are hard to hit will now have armour save bonuses instead of a negative to-hit modifier.

I think I remember reading somewhere that there would actually be 2 types of cover, Ruins and the like would be one type that would improve a unit's armor save.  The other type would be things like Trees and Smoke Launchers that would inflict a negative hit modifier on enemy shooting, since they are obscuring rather than shielding the unit in cover.  That is why I suggested that going to ground (if it is still a thing it might not be) might be the hit modifier since you're not making an cover thicker you're just presenting the foe with a smaller target (hence a hit modifier is appropriate).  A hit modifier would also stack better with other cover because the way it works now it is easy for many units (cough marines) to get a 2+ armor.  Going to ground granting a hit modifier would be more helpful if a heavily armored unit goes to ground already in cover.  But I am getting way too into this considering it is just speculation.

but I don't *think* we've seen a single example of these hit modifiers yet

wormfromhell wrote:

I don't *think* we've seen a single example of these hit modifiers yet

Death Guard faction focus wrote:

The Death Guard also get Miasma of Pestilence – a psychic power which you cast onto one of your own units so that, until your next turn, your opponent must subtract 1 from all hit rolls that target that unit.

Here it is.

New Warhammer 40,000 - Shooting Phase wrote:

The last big change we’re going over today is cover. Currently, cover saves give a blanket save to all units, and one that only comes into effect if the shot would otherwise ignore their armour. In the new Warhammer 40,000, cover is a bonus to your armour save. Critically, this ability often only applies to certain types of unit. For example, only Infantry gain the bonus of cover from a crater.

This interaction works quite nicely with the modifiers to armour saves of certain guns, and means that when someone is trying to hide behind a wall or barricade, if your weapon has a high enough armour penetration, you can shoot them through a wall!

TL;DR: I was previously wrong. So far all that has been said about cover is that it boosts your Armor save, and does not provide a hit modifier.

With this in mind, units with a low armor save are still at an advantage when it comes to making the most of cover, because we can receive a +3 or +4 bonus to our armor save before we max out at 2+, whereas Marines can only receive a +1.

How much do you want to bet all cover will be the same and offer +1 to an armor save just like Age of Sigmar

Tounguekutter wrote:

TL;DR:  I was previously wrong.  So far all that has been said about cover is that it boosts your Armor save, and does not provide a hit modifier.

With this in mind, units with a low armor save are still at an advantage when it comes to making the most of cover, because we can receive a +3 or +4 bonus to our armor save before we max out at 2+, whereas Marines can only receive a +1.

How much do you want to bet all cover will be the same and offer +1 to an armor save just like Age of Sigmar

Actually, you are incorrect. The article on the shooting phase that was posted in the Warhammer Community page on April 30 says the following:

"There are a few other factors that affect hit rolls too – smoke launchers on a vehicle, for example, have the same effect of -1 to hit."

krayd wrote:

Actually, you are incorrect. The article on the shooting phase that was posted in the Warhammer Community page on April 30 says the following:

"There are a few other factors that affect hit rolls too – smoke launchers on a vehicle, for example, have the same effect of -1 to hit."

Ooooooh I am glad to be wrong.

What happens when I shoot a terminator in cover with a Rending -2 weapon?
Does he have a 4+ save or a 3+ save?
Does anybody know?

I would expect 3+ after both modifiers are applied but it's yet to be stated exactly how multiple modifiers are applied yet.