I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange. Relative speeds of infantry and vehicles are not realistic. Ranges of weapons are not realistic, etc
Who knows how powerful a lasgun is. It is a made up weapon.
On top of that I always imagined that everything in 40k was super ancient and run down. Maybe that land raider was bullet proof when it rolled off the production line 500 years ago but now it is held together by duct tape and a prayer to the machine God.
There is also the point that this is a game not a simulation.
We will have to see how this plays out in the long run but I am optimistic that it will make for a more enjoyable gaming experience.
That's generally what To Hit rolls represent! Once you've hit though, BOOM. Not, "I hit and... one guy managed to die in the explosion, whereas the others were miraculously unharmed!".
Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?
H.B.M.C. wrote: My issue with the lack of templates is that it just doesn't make sense.
I fire a Demolisher cannon at you and roll a 1... so the most powerful tank-portable explosive the Imperium can muster manages to hit 1 guy with a massive explosion? How does that make any sense?
There is plenty of potential in-lore explanations. E.g. The shot deviating massively and the explosion only hitting one guy, the explosion happening in a way that the brunt of the explosion gets blocked by terrain or other things to the dud downright being a dud or malfunctioning for a gazillion of reasons.
Most shots miss in war, but when a bloody great explosion goess off at the centre of 10 people, it's not like people get hit randomly by the expanding wave of fire and pressure. It hits everything.
Without a template involved the whole concept of you KNOWING that the shell explodid in the middle of the target goes right of the window. You don't. If the round was perfectly on target then you would have gotten the maximum number of hits instead. Just as is the case with any other non-template weapon.
Same applies to flame throwers. You don't wave a sheet of flame at 10 people and watch as 5+ of them just stand there wondering why their buddies are on fire.
Same as above, also if anything, many rules involving flaming templates don't make any realistic sense (e.g. how hitting models on different floors of a building is handled) either.
In many cases "realism" (which is extremely subjective as well considering we are talking about an universe with daemons, magic and Orks that can make anything happen if just enough believe in it) has to make way for fluid and sensical gameplay as well, there will always something to nitpick about when it comes to realism, especially when everyone values a different aspect of what they percieve to be realism in the game. E.g. the way the new rules are handled for vehicles both serves for more fluid, less complicated and intuitive gameplay while they are at the same time more realistic for ME, e.g. in my case wear and tear through repeated hits by guns and degrading effectiveness of a vehicle under fire not being currently simulated or tanks having to suffer from AT weapon ones-shots while Monstrous Creatures (including so heavily mechanized ones that they arguably already qualify as a vehicle) do not.
Chikout wrote: I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange. Relative speeds of infantry and vehicles are not realistic. Ranges of weapons are not realistic, etc
Who knows how powerful a lasgun is. It is a made up weapon.
On top of that I always imagined that everything in 40k was super ancient and run down. Maybe that land raider was bullet proof when it rolled off the production line 500 years ago but now it is held together by duct tape and a prayer to the machine God.
There is also the point that this is a game not a simulation.
We will have to see how this plays out in the long run but I am optimistic that it will make for a more enjoyable gaming experience.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: These changes to vehicles and templates, from what we know, make no sense IMO, especially with the comment that anything can wound anything...
Let's take a real life example: WW2 Allied infantry firing rifles at a Tiger Tank.
The riflemen could stand there all day and all night firing away, and nothing would happen. Yeah, you might get a one in a million shot where a bullet goes down the barrel and richots inside the tank and kills all the crew, but I'm not buying that.
Did tank commanders hanging out of turrets get picked off by snipers? Of course they did, but 40k was never set up like that.
Even the WW2 'heavy bolter,' the .50 calibre machine gun wouldn't dent the Tiger Tank.
I have no problem with a heavy bolter taking out light vehicles, open topped vehicles, Ork trukks etc etc in 40k, but lasguns and heavy bolters against a land raider? Not for me
That AV 14 is there for a reason and well justified IMO.
The removal of templates is also bizarre. Flamethrowers shoot erratically in real life.
I suspect that most dakka members are also into military history/historical gaming as well, so you'll know that shrapnel from artillery fire flies all over the place, hence the template being needed.
If you've ever read WW2 infantry accounts from allied soldiers in say, Normandy, you'll know the Germans were good at air bursts with their mortar fire. This negated a lot of cover, and when fired in trees, the splinters of wood often caused casualties among the Allied troops.
This new edition needs templates.
There is no need for templates. You didnt even give any reasons why they should stay, you get the same result with '' pick a point of the board every unit with in 3" takes D3 hits.'' This 'new' system allows flexible rules for every blast or template effect instead of 3 cookie cutters. Scatter is a needless abstraction at this scale, i hope they die with the templates then i dont have to face palm when my battle tank shoot behind its self because 'reasons'.
Your historical referencing is pointless this is a scifi-fantasy game, emphasis on fantasy emphasis on game, and bad bad bad. If you really need to justify all this for your self then at least start with a semblance of whats being portrayed, a heavy bolter is not a 50.cal and lasgun is not a bolt action rifle. Ones a rpg/grenade launcher machine gun hybrid the other is a laser gun....
For a sci-fi game set in the 'future' you would think that optical sights and better ways of hitting the enemy would be more common...
The man that invents binoculars in the 40k setting will probably end up becoming head of Mars or something.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: These changes to vehicles and templates, from what we know, make no sense IMO, especially with the comment that anything can wound anything...
Let's take a real life example: WW2 Allied infantry firing rifles at a Tiger Tank.
oh no.....please....not this debate again, we've had pages and pages of it...
We won't know until we have the rules. It's going to be a careful balance and if they get it wrong either vehicles are going to be worthless (too easy to kill) or instant takes (too hard to kill). However it could work in an abstract way if the balance is right (including the reduction in the tanks abilities). I'm sad to see the changes in some ways (I still remember the days when you had a targeting template that you moved around based on the scatter dice roll to see what part you hit!), but understand that they are streamlining the game. The cynical side of me wonders though whether this benefits the tournament organisers (who have been involved the most) as it allows more games to be played, more players to get involved and them to earn more money...
The removal of templates is also bizarre. Flamethrowers shoot erratically in real life.
I suspect that most dakka members are also into military history/historical gaming as well, so you'll know that shrapnel from artillery fire flies all over the place, hence the template being needed.
If you've ever read WW2 infantry accounts from allied soldiers in say, Normandy, you'll know the Germans were good at air bursts with their mortar fire. This negated a lot of cover, and when fired in trees, the splinters of wood often caused casualties among the Allied troops.
This new edition needs templates.
I'm on the fence about templates. I do agree with what you have said and losing them also removes the possibility of flanking a unit in line and barbecuing them. Positioning your units in this way is no longer likely to have any advantage and hence flanking (especially for shooting will no longer be particularly useful) and also only gets you closer to an assault. On the other hand the number of template units, some being absolute monstrosities was getting out of hand for the size of the game. Templates I think are better for smaller skirmish games like Gates of Antares because there are far less units and stops all the shooting units hunkering down in the hardest terrain they can find. Removing templates also stops someone taking hours carefully placing miniatures to minimise splash damage.
I'm glad to see shooting into and out of combat has been consigned to the bin where it belongs.
The one thing I'm still not really keen on is the Battleshock rules as it is just too random. A poor round (even if neither opponent kills a lot) and then a bad roll could really neutralise a key unit and although there should be some statistical nuances in the game, randomness should not really be a deciding factor.
You missed the unit and only managed to cip one guy - Same as when your template scattered off target and did nothing
That's generally what To Hit rolls represent! Once you've hit though, BOOM. Not, "I hit and... one guy managed to die in the explosion, whereas the others were miraculously unharmed!".
I'd argue that's why flamers had such a short range, because at longer ranges all of the above would happen.
Flamers have a short range because it helps balance, again a high roll represents the flamer working normally - a low roll, bad aim, poor positioning, quick reactions by the target, fuel low, mixture wrong, - watch Aliens
Chikout wrote: I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange. Relative speeds of infantry and vehicles are not realistic. Ranges of weapons are not realistic, etc
Who knows how powerful a lasgun is. It is a made up weapon.
On top of that I always imagined that everything in 40k was super ancient and run down. Maybe that land raider was bullet proof when it rolled off the production line 500 years ago but now it is held together by duct tape and a prayer to the machine God.
There is also the point that this is a game not a simulation.
We will have to see how this plays out in the long run but I am optimistic that it will make for a more enjoyable gaming experience.
I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange.
So why does the game follow some arbitrary things from real life like laws of physics, weapons ranges, vehicle speeds, Armour protection etc etc but not others?
The game designers are making a considered decision to adopt some things but ignore others. They can't have it both ways, and they can't complain if somebody complains about it.
If anyone is still going on about Lasguns not being able to hurt tanks and other vehicles (including light ones such as landspeeders that are even open topped) from the front, especially after hundreds of shots, and claiming that it's unrealistic, how about you guys come back with statemements by actual tank crew service personell to back your claims up? Lots of arm chair armoured vehicle and military experts in here with little to back up what they are furiously typing.
Also in real world that M1A2, completely undamaged and fresh from the factory, could be blown up by single anti-tank missile - something which can't happen in 8ED rules. So is that any more realistic then? And same will apply to that Carnifex btw so that issue won't be fixed. It is likely that average MC will have ~10 Wounds with maybe 4+ save, so they won't be one-shotted, and those Lasguns will do to them less damage than they do in 7Ed. So no, "suboptimal army" won't do any better under this system. Special weapons are still needed to deal with special threats.
As for templates, they are a cinematic element in a game which helps to make it feel more like a real battle and less abstract. One had to be cautious with them lest you blow up your own units. A normal roll to hit won't have that effect. Also, without templates, there is no reason NOT to keep your infantry units in a tight clump or block. Whilst this is not a big technical issue, it is going to make games look pretty silly.
theocracity wrote: Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?
Can' roll To Wound if they don't get hit in the first place.
If this is:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Now that you've hit, roll to see how many you actually hit!
3. Roll To Wound.
Then that's what this'd cause. If there's no initial To Hit roll, then that's a different story.
Can't believe I'm agreeing with you but this post.
Of course things go wrong in war with dud shells, and flamethrowers blowing up and I support that in any wargame 100% but IMO, the time for bad luck to affect a weapon should always be when you're trying to hit, never when you're trying to wound.
A successful hit roll in my book means you've paid your tax. You deserve the benefits for your success, subject to Armour saves of course where applicable.
Yes they can have it both ways if it means a more balanced and/or enjoyable game. This rule isn't realistic is not a good argument against it. The very fact it's a game makes it unrealistic.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: These changes to vehicles and templates, from what we know, make no sense IMO, especially with the comment that anything can wound anything...
Let's take a real life example: WW2 Allied infantry firing rifles at a Tiger Tank.
oh no.....please....not this debate again, we've had pages and pages of it...
We won't know until we have the rules. It's going to be a careful balance and if they get it wrong either vehicles are going to be worthless (too easy to kill) or instant takes (too hard to kill). However it could work in an abstract way if the balance is right (including the reduction in the tanks abilities). I'm sad to see the changes in some ways (I still remember the days when you had a targeting template that you moved around based on the scatter dice roll to see what part you hit!), but understand that they are streamlining the game. The cynical side of me wonders though whether this benefits the tournament organisers (who have been involved the most) as it allows more games to be played, more players to get involved and them to earn more money...
The removal of templates is also bizarre. Flamethrowers shoot erratically in real life.
I suspect that most dakka members are also into military history/historical gaming as well, so you'll know that shrapnel from artillery fire flies all over the place, hence the template being needed.
If you've ever read WW2 infantry accounts from allied soldiers in say, Normandy, you'll know the Germans were good at air bursts with their mortar fire. This negated a lot of cover, and when fired in trees, the splinters of wood often caused casualties among the Allied troops.
This new edition needs templates.
I'm on the fence about templates. I do agree with what you have said and losing them also removes the possibility of flanking a unit in line and barbecuing them. Positioning your units in this way is no longer likely to have any advantage and hence flanking (especially for shooting will no longer be particularly useful) and also only gets you closer to an assault. On the other hand the number of template units, some being absolute monstrosities was getting out of hand for the size of the game. Templates I think are better for smaller skirmish games like Gates of Antares because there are far less units and stops all the shooting units hunkering down in the hardest terrain they can find. Removing templates also stops someone taking hours carefully placing miniatures to minimise splash damage.
I'm glad to see shooting into and out of combat has been consigned to the bin where it belongs.
The one thing I'm still not really keen on is the Battleshock rules as it is just too random. A poor round (even if neither opponent kills a lot) and then a bad roll could really neutralise a key unit and although there should be some statistical nuances in the game, randomness should not really be a deciding factor.
People moving miniatures to minimize splash damage was never a problem for me, because real-life military units have a loose formation when moving and firing at any rate anyway.
This ain't Warhammer 1750ADk with everybody marching in line
theocracity wrote: Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?
Can' roll To Wound if they don't get hit in the first place.
If this is:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Now that you've hit, roll to see how many you actually hit!
3. Roll To Wound.
Then that's what this'd cause. If there's no initial To Hit roll, then that's a different story.
I believe there are still To Hit rolls for new-template weapons.
How is that breakdown substantially different from the current rules though? The only difference is that current 40k bake the 'To Hit' and 'How Many You Actually Hit' steps into the scatter step. If you scatter entirely you miss, and if you scatter so you only hit 1 model you didn't hit many. All of those scatter rules then function as an extended exception to the normal ways that shooting rules work, for no real additional benefit besides the ability to sell plastic accessories and dice that are otherwise useless in the game.
Earth127 wrote: Yes they can have it both ways if it means a more balanced and/or enjoyable game. This rule isn't realistic is not a good argument against it. The very fact it's a game makes it unrealistic.
Balanced game? They've been trying to balance 40K since the 1980s!
In many cases "realism" (which is extremely subjective as well considering we are talking about an universe with daemons, magic and Orks that can make anything happen if just enough believe in it) has to make way for fluid and sensical gameplay as well, there will always something to nitpick about when it comes to realism, especially when everyone values a different aspect of what they percieve to be realism in the game. E.g. the way the new rules are handled for vehicles both serves for more fluid, less complicated and intuitive gameplay.
Current system: roll to hit, roll to penetrate, if you penetrate roll for effect which is same for all Vehicles.
New system: roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, roll for how many wounds, consult the damage table which is unique for each Vehicle.
How it is more fluid and less complicated? If anything, the new system seems slower and more laborous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: This rule isn't realistic is not a good argument against it. The very fact it's a game makes it unrealistic.
If realism is irrelevant, why don't we have infantry with Gretchin sized models but S10 T10? Why don't we have infantry models carrying Demolisher cannons? Why don't we have pistols with 72" range, S10 AP1?
Chikout wrote: I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange. Relative speeds of infantry and vehicles are not realistic. Ranges of weapons are not realistic, etc
Who knows how powerful a lasgun is. It is a made up weapon.
On top of that I always imagined that everything in 40k was super ancient and run down. Maybe that land raider was bullet proof when it rolled off the production line 500 years ago but now it is held together by duct tape and a prayer to the machine God.
There is also the point that this is a game not a simulation.
We will have to see how this plays out in the long run but I am optimistic that it will make for a more enjoyable gaming experience.
I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange.
So why does the game follow some arbitrary things from real life like laws of physics, weapons ranges, vehicle speeds, Armour protection etc etc but not others?
The game designers are making a considered decision to adopt some things but ignore others. They can't have it both ways, and they can't complain if somebody complains about it.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of "real life like laws" not accounted for in 40k. Arguing that removal of one abstraction in favour of another is somehow inconsistent on the part of the game designers is incredibly disingenuous. Just say it like it is, you like templates, don't try to make it into an argument about realism. The end result of a Wyvern using templates or a Wyvern not using templates is going to be the same: sometimes it kills a few models, sometimes a lot. Template weapons in 7th can only cause one wound to monstrous creatures or vehicles... is that realistic? The only thing you loose is the physical sensation of holding that template over some dudes, and the tedium of moving dozens of models while keeping them exactly 2" apart.
"Lasguns can kill Riptides, Riptides too weak, 0/10 unit pls buff. Also I prefer the old way of generating automatic hits by holding a perfectly circular piece of plastic over models but this whole "rolling a dice" thing sounds too unrealistic for my taste. After all, blasts are perfectly circular and all people in real life have perfect circles around them dictating their hit box."
"Well, I'm sure it take infinity-bazillion lasguns to kill a new Land Raider anyway and not a real issue. Also, templates are bad and slow down play - much better to have even more random rolls to see what you get instead because randomness is fun!"
That's the level of conversation we're now at. If you prefer the old way where units couldn't be harmed at all, and loved holding templates over models because it felt better, that's fine. If you like the fact that there's now no total rock-paper-scissor match ups, and prefer fast gameplay to holding plastic over toy soldiers, that's also fine. Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.
Eyjio wrote: "Lasguns can kill Riptides, Riptides too weak, 0/10 unit pls buff. Also I prefer the old way of generating automatic hits by holding a perfectly circular piece of plastic over models but this whole "rolling a dice" thing sounds too unrealistic for my taste. After all, blasts are perfectly circular and all people in real life have perfect circles around them dictating their hit box."
"Well, I'm sure it take infinity-bazillion lasguns to kill a new Land Raider anyway and not a real issue. Also, templates are bad and slow down play - much better to have even more random rolls to see what you get instead because randomness is fun!"
That's the level of conversation we're now at. If you prefer the old way where units couldn't be harmed at all, and loved holding templates over models because it felt better, that's fine. If you like the fact that there's now no total rock-paper-scissor match ups, and prefer fast gameplay to holding plastic over toy soldiers, that's also fine. Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.
Well put.
I may be arguing against templates, but the truth is I'm gonna miss them at least a little bit. Not the parts where we all stand around squinting over the table at a sketchily-scattered template trying to hit models under a ruin ceiling, of course. But there was an element of fun to them.
That being said, I totally understand why GW would want to streamline its rules by getting rid of the way that templates and vehicle armor functioned as unnecessary extended exceptions to the way all of the other rules worked, and the oddities and bad gameplay that developed from those. I'm looking forward to having games go a bit quicker - maybe it'll actually get me playing again.
"Realistic" is the wrong word, and sends peeps down all these stupid paths. "Plausible and internally consistent" is probably the better term.
The important thing is, do heavy tanks feel like heavy tanks? Do they feel more durable than lighter tanks? Are anti-tank weapons relatively more effective vs tanks than light weapons? Is the opposite true?
Try to look at the changes under that measure.
Edit: For what it's worth, I think the current mismatch between vehicles and MC's is horrible and this change fixes that. Regardless of other factors, that's a huge win in my book
Weazel wrote: So much Doom & Gloom here when e.g. vehicle rules have barely been glanced yet. I'd wait for more substantial details before passing judgement on the rules.
I know GW doesn't have a great track record at making rules and balancing things. However GW didn't have a reputation of listening to their customer base and taking input on rules and other issues. But look how have things turned around.
Have to say I'm liking this "new GW" and I'm really excited about this new edition. 7th edition has all but killed my and our group's interest in 40k. I'm confident it cannot possibly be worse.
Eyjio wrote: "Lasguns can kill Riptides, Riptides too weak, 0/10 unit pls buff. Also I prefer the old way of generating automatic hits by holding a perfectly circular piece of plastic over models but this whole "rolling a dice" thing sounds too unrealistic for my taste. After all, blasts are perfectly circular and all people in real life have perfect circles around them dictating their hit box."
"Well, I'm sure it take infinity-bazillion lasguns to kill a new Land Raider anyway and not a real issue. Also, templates are bad and slow down play - much better to have even more random rolls to see what you get instead because randomness is fun!"
That's the level of conversation we're now at. If you prefer the old way where units couldn't be harmed at all, and loved holding templates over models because it felt better, that's fine. If you like the fact that there's now no total rock-paper-scissor match ups, and prefer fast gameplay to holding plastic over toy soldiers, that's also fine. Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.
What are you doing coming here and being completely reasonable?! People like you don't belong on the internetz!
I for one will not miss templates, as even against the most casual opponent there is disagreement over what they hit. Heck, the old 4+ if partially under was done away with to make it easier and there are STILL discussions. I'm well up for an alternative.
This ain't Warhammer 1750ADk with everybody marching in line
Please, please tell me you are joking with that line. Every single piece of artwork you see of the Astra Militarum is them in massive blobs, with swords, firing lines, standard barers, flags, etc. There's a reason people draw parallel lines between the Astra Militarum and the late 1700 to late 1800 wars in this time - because that's the kind of design GW were going for.
Not using the flamer templates will be sad, because they are amusing, but I also remember using vortex grenade templates with their cool vortex storm patterns on too.
People moving miniatures to minimize splash damage was never a problem for me, because real-life military units have a loose formation when moving and firing at any rate anyway.
This ain't Warhammer 1750ADk with everybody marching in line
Sorry I wasn't clear...it was the time some people took to do it (getting a template out and measuring each one to ensure they were in the perfect position) - which isn't particularly realistic either.
A: Digital and all of our stores and some independent stockiest will have a limited supply at launch in print format
if you want paper copies it sounds like you'll need to be quick
Sigh, not this again. I would have thought GW would have learnt from the Necromunda fiasco. I mean at least they could put up a pre-order so they could know how many to put in circulation.
Eyjio wrote: Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.
Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.
The problem was that they were too cheap and could be spammed at horrible amounts so it was a Codex issue rather than basic rules issue.
Edit: For what it's worth, I think the current mismatch between vehicles and MC's is horrible and this change fixes that. Regardless of other factors, that's a huge win in my book
This is again more of a Codex issue than BRB issue: they threw out "Monstrous Creatures" which by all logic and common sense should have been Walkers. If Riptide had been AV12 Walker, there would have been few complaints.
Not that many people complained that Carnifexi were too good...
And everyone seems to be OK with that. GW's brainwashing marketing has finally paid off for them.
I am not a big fan of AoS, but so far I'm ok, wouldn't say excited, about what's been revealed. Two main reasons, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this:
1) the current 40k rules are so messy IMO an AoS40k would actually be an improvement. Not the direction I want it to go but the fact is I have not been playing 40k for a while now because the rules just kinda suck no matter how you want to play. They're too bloated for casual play and too imbalanced to get excited about tournaments. There really is hardly anywhere to go but up.
2) An AoS release for 40k would be far less dramatic than it was in fantasy. It's still essentially the same type of game, in the same universe, with the same models.
My personal take on AoS is that it has a lot of good ideas that were and remain poorly executed. if they can execute well, and I'm hoping they will because they have lots of $$$ reasons to take it more seriously than they did AoS, it might turn out to be what AoS could have been. Very casual, but fun.
Eyjio wrote: Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.
Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.
Tell that to Orks. If you didn't jam every available rokkit (edit: or Lootas) into your list - which weren't even that good at destroying vehicles without hull points around - your best chance was with a Powerklaw, which required you to catch the vehicle, hope you do damage without it driving away, and even if you do blow it up watch as the occupants disembark in an orderly fashion for their point-blank shooting or counter-assault response.
It's why I feel so strongly about the need to do away with the binary nature of AV.
If the new rules are really only about 12 pages, I'm sure every Codex in the start line-up will have them in it, just like every Battletome in AoS has the full rules in the back.
I'm also sure the new starter set will have them.
And a 12 page booklet is something everyone can print at home, at work or GW can pump out a reprint in about a week, as opposed to the 130ish pages of Shadow War.
And everyone seems to be OK with that. GW's brainwashing marketing has finally paid off for them.
I am not a big fan of AoS, but so far I'm ok, wouldn't say excited, about what's been revealed. Two main reasons, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this:
1) the current 40k rules are so messy IMO an AoS40k would actually be an improvement. Not the direction I want it to go but the fact is I have not been playing 40k for a while now because the rules just kinda suck no matter how you want to play. They're too bloated for casual play and too imbalanced to get excited about tournaments. There really is hardly anywhere to go but up.
2) An AoS release for 40k would be far less dramatic than it was in fantasy. It's still essentially the same type of game, in the same universe, with the same models.
My personal take on AoS is that it has a lot of good ideas that were and remain poorly executed. if they can execute well, and I'm hoping they will because they have lots of $$$ reasons to take it more seriously than they did AoS, it might turn out to be what AoS could have been. Very casual, but fun.
Just had a look at the free AoS rules for the first time, and if this is what we're in for with nu-40k I'm pretty happy. It only took a few minutes to grasp all the basics, and I can't believe how many long-standing 40k issues are fixed in just 4 pages of rules. Everything seems consistent to boot; melee and shooting both work the same way, increasing damage to large units is very straightforward, and there's all round way less room for ambiguity. If this was 7E I'd spend the same amount of time just learning the rules for tanks as I spent reading for everything in AoS.
I can see why literally half my local club has been playing this every time I've been down lately.
Don't forget that the GHB2 is going to come out this summer too, and I imagine it will be getting tweaked slightly (shooting is too good at the moment)
Hanskrampf wrote: If the new rules are really only about 12 pages, I'm sure every Codex in the start line-up will have them in it, just like every Battletome in AoS has the full rules in the back.
I'm also sure the new starter set will have them.
And a 12 page booklet is something everyone can print at home, at work or GW can pump out a reprint in about a week, as opposed to the 130ish pages of Shadow War.
I wonder if there's any chance of GW simply bundling the rules in with White Dwarf?
Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.
Tell that to Orks. If you didn't jam every available rokkit into your list - which weren't even that good at destroying vehicles without hull points around - your best chance was with a Powerklaw, which required you to catch the vehicle, hope you do damage without it driving away, and even if you do blow it up watch as the occupants disembark in an orderly fashion for their point-blank shooting or counter-assault response.
It's why I feel so strongly about the need to do away with the binary nature of AV.
Land Raider was an issue for the Orks, yes, but not so much other tanks. I played Mech Tau and usually lost badly against Orks. Bikes and Multi-assaulting Boyz blobs were brutal against AV10 and weak infantry.
However, you're not going to stop a Land Raider with your Shootas even in 8ED anyway so it's not likely to be much different. This is actually why I oppose the "everything can hurt everything" principle. Not that I am afraid that Lasguns and Bolters will kill all Vehicles, but because I think it will lead to lots of "hope for the best" shooting with tons of dice rolling for little real results and will only serve to bog the game down.
Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.
A: Digital and all of our stores and some independent stockiest will have a limited supply at launch in print format
if you want paper copies it sounds like you'll need to be quick
Sigh, not this again. I would have thought GW would have learnt from the Necromunda fiasco. I mean at least they could put up a pre-order so they could know how many to put in circulation.
If you want paper copies, you'll need to be quick.
theocracity wrote: Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?
Can' roll To Wound if they don't get hit in the first place.
If this is:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Now that you've hit, roll to see how many you actually hit!
3. Roll To Wound.
Then that's what this'd cause. If there's no initial To Hit roll, then that's a different story.
Can't believe I'm agreeing with you but this post.
Of course things go wrong in war with dud shells, and flamethrowers blowing up and I support that in any wargame 100% but IMO, the time for bad luck to affect a weapon should always be when you're trying to hit, never when you're trying to wound.
A successful hit roll in my book means you've paid your tax. You deserve the benefits for your success, subject to Armour saves of course where applicable.
Then why do we roll to wound at all? I mean if you hit all models should be wounded right. So if your demolisher hits and rolls all 1s to wound that is bad. I think people arguing this point are being intentionally obtuse, how is Roll to hit, determine number of hits, roll to wound, functionally different than place template, roll scatter, determine number of hits, roll to wound? I see 2 differences 1.) One is tactile, the other is not, 2.) with the template you know the number of hits if you roll a hit on the scatter dice. On the flip side big cannons do far more against monsters and vehicles than ever before.
If anything removal of templates to me is far more "realistic" in that a demolisher cannon hitting a riptide might now kill the riptide, instead of simply doing 1 hit. Demolisher wiping 10 terminators, but only doing 1 wound to an MC makes far less sense than, determining number of hits to which ever unit is attacked.
To me removal of templates speeds up the game, removes potential arguments (number of models hit when it is close, measure of scatter, angle of scatter), and increases effectiveness of those weapons by and large (especially small blast templates, I'd much rather my plasma cannon do D3+1 wounds for example, than placing the small blast which usually hits one guy.)
A: Digital and all of our stores and some independent stockiest will have a limited supply at launch in print format
if you want paper copies it sounds like you'll need to be quick
Sigh, not this again. I would have thought GW would have learnt from the Necromunda fiasco. I mean at least they could put up a pre-order so they could know how many to put in circulation.
If you want paper copies, you'll need to be quick.
Or own a printer since it'll be presented free.
It should also be pointed out that Limited is a subjective term. Betrayel at Calth was also a limited release but had such a huge run that you can still find boxes of it for sale at GW.
Do we know if there will be an off hand option for a lucky explosion on vehicles or will they need to be whittled down before breaking down? An instant death option of sorts I guess.
Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.
Tell that to Orks. If you didn't jam every available rokkit into your list - which weren't even that good at destroying vehicles without hull points around - your best chance was with a Powerklaw, which required you to catch the vehicle, hope you do damage without it driving away, and even if you do blow it up watch as the occupants disembark in an orderly fashion for their point-blank shooting or counter-assault response.
It's why I feel so strongly about the need to do away with the binary nature of AV.
Land Raider was an issue for the Orks, yes, but not so much other tanks. I played Mech Tau and usually lost badly against Orks. Bikes and Multi-assaulting Boyz blobs were brutal against AV10 and weak infantry.
However, you're not going to stop a Land Raider with your Shootas even in 8ED anyway so it's not likely to be much different. This is actually why I oppose the "everything can hurt everything" principle. Not that I am afraid that Lasguns and Bolters will kill all Vehicles, but because I think it will lead to lots of "hope for the best" shooting with tons of dice rolling for little real results and will only serve to bog the game down.
It wasn't just land raiders that were a problem - anything that was AV13 wasn't going to be penetrated by Lootas either, so before Hull Points those were pretty tough to crack as well. Fast assaults were an option, but more often than not they were your only option - if those units were neutralized you got pretty skunked.
As for wasting time shooting lasguns - I'm fine with that as an alternative to the sense of futility that comes from having all of your options get eliminated or be unusable from the start. Its the difference between a game against an all-Knight army being an auto-scoop because no dice roll can possibly matter, versus a desperate last stand where you try to bring down the beast against all odds.
DynamicCalories wrote: Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.
Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.
By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.
I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...
DynamicCalories wrote: Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.
Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.
By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.
Flames of War and Bolt Action are WW2 games where Infantry are shooting small bullets, not self-propelled explosive .75 rounds or laser beams.
DynamicCalories wrote: Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.
Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.
By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.
At the end of the day who really cares though? People are trying to apply realism to a game where the human infantry carry laser rifles. The fact that a lasgun could in the remotest possibility hurt a land raider just opens the window to that epic moment in a battle that will stick with you for a long time after it happens. the same way a guardsman might be able to wallop a deamon prince in close combat. it will happen very rarely, but it'll create awesome battle stories.
Capamaru wrote: I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...
Someone did the math earlier and I believe it would take 100 guardsmen a total of 11 rounds of continuos fire to down a land raider. (maybe it was 50 guardsmen - either way a completely unrealistic game situation).
Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.
Tell that to Orks. If you didn't jam every available rokkit into your list - which weren't even that good at destroying vehicles without hull points around - your best chance was with a Powerklaw, which required you to catch the vehicle, hope you do damage without it driving away, and even if you do blow it up watch as the occupants disembark in an orderly fashion for their point-blank shooting or counter-assault response.
It's why I feel so strongly about the need to do away with the binary nature of AV.
Land Raider was an issue for the Orks, yes, but not so much other tanks. I played Mech Tau and usually lost badly against Orks. Bikes and Multi-assaulting Boyz blobs were brutal against AV10 and weak infantry.
However, you're not going to stop a Land Raider with your Shootas even in 8ED anyway so it's not likely to be much different. This is actually why I oppose the "everything can hurt everything" principle. Not that I am afraid that Lasguns and Bolters will kill all Vehicles, but because I think it will lead to lots of "hope for the best" shooting with tons of dice rolling for little real results and will only serve to bog the game down.
I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.
DynamicCalories wrote: Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.
Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.
If I had the chance, in these hypothetical rules, of shooting my 40 IG lasguns at anything else over a Land Raider, i'd most likely shoot at anything else. If I was given the chance to get a wound by shooting it, I probably would. If you think this is a waste of your time, you're pretty miserly.
They have said that on average a 2000 point game has lost an hour of play time. That seems to suggest that all that dice rolling is not taking as long as remembering or referencing rules. It's a wargame, there is always going to be some down time. Given that they have said on twitter that you're looking at wounding a Land Raider with 500 Imperial Guard (which is likely an exaggeration), I think you're creating an issue that will probably not exist.
Armored: This unit ignores wounds from weapons that don't have the key word Armor Piercing.
Flank the Tank: This unit doubles its attack dice when attacking units with keyword Vehicle from behind. See diagram in the core rules for an explanation of flanking/behind a vehicle.
These are some of the kind of things they could do that work with a current AoS core.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My issue with the lack of templates is that it just doesn't make sense.
I fire a Demolisher cannon at you and roll a 1... so the most powerful tank-portable explosive the Imperium can muster manages to hit 1 guy with a massive explosion? How does that make any sense?
Most shots miss in war, but when a bloody great explosion goess off at the centre of 10 people, it's not like people get hit randomly by the expanding wave of fire and pressure. It hits everything.
Same applies to flame throwers. You don't wave a sheet of flame at 10 people and watch as 5+ of them just stand there wondering why their buddies are on fire.
This is mitigated by how the damage stat works in AOS.
If a Demolisher cannon has a damage stat of 2 or more (and it most likely will), it does that number of wounds to the entire unit. So if it is something like damage 5 a single hit can still translate to 5 wounds. D6 damage is common in AoS, but there are still units with fixed values (Skarbrand's axe Slaughter being 3 damage as an example). And keep in mind this is on a per-hit basis, so it's possible to get a lot of wounds. The aforementioned Skarbrand can potentially dish out 24 wounds, with 8 damage 3 attacks.
And this edition's handling of flame throwers doesn't really answer that question either. I might put a template over a unit of 20 orks, but I only hit the ones I can land the template on, which still leads to the rest of the unit sitting there unaffected. The issue you bring up has more to do with morale, I'd wager (Do we keep doing what we're doing or does Phil's "I'm on fire" screaming make retreat a more tempting option?)
DynamicCalories wrote: Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.
Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.
By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.
At the end of the day who really cares though? People are trying to apply realism to a game where the human infantry carry laser rifles. The fact that a lasgun could in the remotest possibility hurt a land raider just opens the window to that epic moment in a battle that will stick with you for a long time after it happens. the same way a guardsman might be able to wallop a deamon prince in close combat. it will happen very rarely, but it'll create awesome battle stories.
Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?
By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.
Flames of War and Bolt Action are WW2 games where Infantry are shooting small bullets, not self-propelled explosive .75 rounds or laser beams.
Warhammer 40 000 is a science fiction game where tanks are made of super-tough adamantium or ceramite, not regular steel.
I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.
so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.
By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.
Flames of War and Bolt Action are WW2 games where Infantry are shooting small bullets, not self-propelled explosive .75 rounds or laser beams.
Warhammer 40 000 is a science fiction game where tanks are made of super-tough adamantium or ceramite, not regular steel.
I would love it if both the 'rules should match current day reality' and 'but it's sci fi tho' arguments would realize that neither side adds anything to a conversation that is ultimately about a game abstraction.
DynamicCalories wrote: Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.
Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.
By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.
Flames of War and Bolt Action are WW2 games where Infantry are shooting small bullets, not self-propelled explosive .75 rounds or laser beams.
DynamicCalories wrote: Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.
Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.
By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.
At the end of the day who really cares though? People are trying to apply realism to a game where the human infantry carry laser rifles. The fact that a lasgun could in the remotest possibility hurt a land raider just opens the window to that epic moment in a battle that will stick with you for a long time after it happens. the same way a guardsman might be able to wallop a deamon prince in close combat. it will happen very rarely, but it'll create awesome battle stories.
Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?
The problem is that, as much as people bring this up, all too often it ends up with a "well...that was dumb" moment of reflection on a rules artifact rearing its ugly head rather than some great epic moment.
DynamicCalories wrote: Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.
Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.
If I had the chance, in these hypothetical rules, of shooting my 40 IG lasguns at anything else over a Land Raider, i'd most likely shoot at anything else. If I was given the chance to get a wound by shooting it, I probably would. If you think this is a waste of your time, you're pretty miserly.
Why? Seems to me it's perfectly reasonable to hope that game has no mechanics which require lots of effort for little potential gain. Isn't this one of the things people have been complaining about 7th edition?
They have said that on average a 2000 point game has lost an hour of play time. That seems to suggest that all that dice rolling is not taking as long as remembering or referencing rules. It's a wargame, there is always going to be some down time. Given that they have said on twitter that you're looking at wounding a Land Raider with 500 Imperial Guard (which is likely an exaggeration), I think you're creating an issue that will probably not exist.
They said 500 Conscripts (which have BS2...). It might not be that much of an exaggaration. Under current rules it takes average 250 Conscripts to kill a Riptide with Lasguns. Land Raider should be at about same toughness class, or thereabouts.
If the theoretical Landraider stat line is 24 wounds with a 2+ save and lasguns wound it on 6's, fire 2 shots, and hit on 4+, it takes 864 guardsmen to kill a land raider. Or 6 turns of 144 guardsmen firing at only that Landraider and taking 0 casualties the entire game. Seems pretty good to me.
If the Landraider stats are 20 wounds with a +3 save then it takes 360 of the same guardsmen to kill a Landraider, or 6 turns of 60 guardsmen.
Still seems like pretty good use of a tank to me. I would be happy to have them shooting at that all game than shooting at my infantry...
I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.
so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.
So like age of sigmar (and a ton of more games, but the closest they'd draw inspiration from)?
well, with how they got abused by 7E, as opposed to originally being reflective of the most destructive titan mounted weapons, I'd say this is a good thing.
Well then it isn't a huge difference is it. Would people currently waste their 250 conscripts shooting a Riptide right now?
As for Vaktathi's comment on "well that was dumb" - I point you to the absurd humour of 40k. You can't have incredibly cool without incredibly dumb. Such is the way a system based on dice rolls work. You're always gonna roll an improbably 1 or 6 at some point.
Backfire wrote: Warhammer 40 000 is a science fiction game where tanks are made of super-tough adamantium or ceramite, not regular steel.
Warhammer 40,000 is a science fiction game where power swords, which are supposedly able to cut through terminator armor, have little to no effect on vehicles. But that same energy, applied to a fist weapon, has a good chance of allowing someone to punch a tank to death.
DynamicCalories wrote: Well then it isn't a huge difference is it. Would people currently waste their 250 conscripts shooting a Riptide right now?
As for Vaktathi's comment on "well that was dumb" - I point you to the absurd humour of 40k. You can't have incredibly cool without incredibly dumb. Such is the way a system based on dice rolls work. You're always gonna roll an improbably 1 or 6 at some point.
Agreed. I'd rather the statistically unlikely 'that was dumb' moments over the statistically impossible 'that was dumb' moments (like trying to play a Green Tide list against a Knight army - which should be visually pretty cool but is almost pointless to play out).
Hell, RNG dumb moments are one reason why I love Blood Bowl so much!
A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.
If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.
By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.
Flames of War and Bolt Action are WW2 games where Infantry are shooting small bullets, not self-propelled explosive .75 rounds or laser beams.
Warhammer 40 000 is a science fiction game where tanks are made of super-tough adamantium or ceramite, not regular steel.
I would love it if both the 'rules should match current day reality' and 'but it's sci fi tho' arguments would realize that neither side adds anything to a conversation that is ultimately about a game abstraction.
I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.
so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.
So like age of sigmar (and a ton of more games, but the closest they'd draw inspiration from)?
more like 2nd edi 40k as the closest to draw inspiration from
tyrannosaurus wrote: A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.
If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.
That's not really tactics though, that's just list building and purchasing decisions. The only tactical element of that is knowing your local metagame, which will still be important - there's just less chance of there being binary games where you hardly have a reason to even put models on the table.
I mean, in your example, 9 times out of 10 shotgun beats bow - but that doesn't mean the bow has literally no point in even picking up the dice.
Of course there will still be tactics. Just because 50 guardsmen can maybe take 1 solitary wound of a Land Raider, it doesn't mean they should fire at it when it is at full wounds and there are other units on the table.
It does mean it will perhaps make sense to decide whether to co-ordinate your shooting towards a severely wounded Land Raider or not.
If they could never hurt it, then there would never be any reason to shoot it, which gives you less decisions to make. More decisions = more engagement and more tactical choices. That's the opposite of dumbing down.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.
If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.
So to point out how stupid a system where everything can hurt everything is, we use an example from a game where everything can hurt everything?
Rayvon wrote: I cant believe this ridiculous Land Raider discussion went on for so long.
They said that anything can hurt anything, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
No one said anything about a load of las guns taking out a land raider.
A Land raider as it stands it is quite easily dispatched by lascannon fire or a plethora of other weapons capable of doing so and widespread among all races. Adding insult to injury now lasguns or bolters or shurikens will be able to do so also, so how about a couple of lascannon shots and then shoot the flashlight guns at it to finish it of... is this dumb enough for you?
tyrannosaurus wrote: A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.
If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.
So when they say everything can hurt everything, but that it would take something in the order of 200 guardsmen to kill a Land Raider in the new rules... does this not create the supposedly crucial depth and challenge that you already enjoy in 7th edition's vehicle rules? Considering, you wouldn't fire those guardsmen at the LR before, and you still wouldn't now. The same decision is present, you still get to pick your targets efficiently.
That's the key thing to take away here: some things being immune to certain weapons was NOT a universal trait in the current edition. Currently existing heavy units like Riptide battle suits were vulnerable to small arms weaponry but only in the order of hundreds of shots. Here's a tactical distinction for you: do you waste 200 lasgun shots at the riptide, or fire at an infantry unit instead? If the target had an AV, there would be no opportunity for that same tactical decision, the choice isn't just obvious it's forced. So by that logic, would you still say the new system 'removes a tactical element'? Is it possible that they actually just changed a tactical element?
The butt injuries are fierce over this decision, despite an incredible lack of available information about the game as a whole. If AV is the cross you want to die on for 8th edition, I'd refer you to the last two or three editions of fans groaning that the vehicle rules were crap. They changed the rules as they were asked, and get scorn for it from the vocal minority; some things never change!
Capamaru wrote: A Land raider as it stands it is quite easily dispatched by lascannon fire or a plethora of other weapons capable of doing so and widespread among all races. Adding insult to injury now lasguns or bolters or shurikens will be able to do so also, so how about a couple of lascannon shots and then shoot the flashlight guns at it to finish it of... is this dumb enough for you?
Currently, 1 Lascannon shot rolling perfectly equals 1 dead Land Raider, but 4 Lascannon shots rolling perfectly equals 1 still fully functional Riptide. Is that dumb enough ?
In #New40k a Lascannon may do D6 wounds, and Land Raiders will probably have 13+ wounds. So 1 Lascannon cannot 1 shot it anymore. And in fact may need a bunch of Lascannon shots hitting to take it out reliably. We don't know yet. But removing the 1 shot may equal 1 kill issue with vehicles is a huge help for them
tyrannosaurus wrote: A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.
If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.
So when they say everything can hurt everything, but that it would take something in the order of 200 guardsmen to kill a Land Raider in the new rules... does this not create the supposedly crucial depth and challenge that you already enjoy in 7th edition's vehicle rules? Considering, you wouldn't fire those guardsmen at the LR before, and you still wouldn't now. The same decision is present, you still get to pick your targets efficiently.
That's the key thing to take away here: some things being immune to certain weapons was NOT a universal trait in the current edition. Currently existing heavy units like Riptide battle suits were vulnerable to small arms weaponry but only in the order of hundreds of shots. Here's a tactical distinction for you: do you waste 200 lasgun shots at the riptide, or fire at an infantry unit instead? If the target had an AV, there would be no opportunity for that same tactical decision, the choice isn't just obvious it's forced. So by that logic, would you still say the new system 'removes a tactical element'? Is it possible that they actually just changed a tactical element?
Now repeat the same example but instead of lasguns and guardsmen use eldar jetbikes with scatter lasers. Giving everyone the ability to hurt anything can lead to some incredibly blunt lists. It might look as tactical decision making but we have to see the whole game to make up our mind.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.
If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.
So when they say everything can hurt everything, but that it would take something in the order of 200 guardsmen to kill a Land Raider in the new rules... does this not create the supposedly crucial depth and challenge that you already enjoy in 7th edition's vehicle rules? Considering, you wouldn't fire those guardsmen at the LR before, and you still wouldn't now. The same decision is present, you still get to pick your targets efficiently.
That's the key thing to take away here: some things being immune to certain weapons was NOT a universal trait in the current edition. Currently existing heavy units like Riptide battle suits were vulnerable to small arms weaponry but only in the order of hundreds of shots. Here's a tactical distinction for you: do you waste 200 lasgun shots at the riptide, or fire at an infantry unit instead? If the target had an AV, there would be no opportunity for that same tactical decision, the choice isn't just obvious it's forced. So by that logic, would you still say the new system 'removes a tactical element'? Is it possible that they actually just changed a tactical element?
Now repeat the same example but instead of lasguns and guardsmen use eldar jetbikes with scatter lasers. Giving everyone the ability to hurt anything can lead to some incredibly blunt lists. It might look as tactical decision making but we have to see the whole game to make up our mind.
Personally I love this image. Pretty sure even the BEST meat grinder will fail if you choke it with enough guardsmen steaks.
Oh and to all the real life MBT commanders in here complaining about how unrealistic it is that a landraider be stopped by guardsmen I have to laugh that they even field a land raider. What do I mean? Simply the fact that all imperial tanks barring the rhino chassis are not mobile out the factory do to the lack of a fething suspension. Seriously, every guard tank, and the beloved LR would be sitting in one fething spot tearing turf. So can we please stop with the real life BS.
Capamaru wrote: A Land raider as it stands it is quite easily dispatched by lascannon fire or a plethora of other weapons capable of doing so and widespread among all races. Adding insult to injury now lasguns or bolters or shurikens will be able to do so also, so how about a couple of lascannon shots and then shoot the flashlight guns at it to finish it of... is this dumb enough for you?
Currently, 1 Lascannon shot rolling perfectly equals 1 dead Land Raider, but 4 Lascannon shots rolling perfectly equals 1 still fully functional Riptide. Is that dumb enough ?
In #New40k a Lascannon may do D6 wounds, and Land Raiders will probably have 13+ wounds. So 1 Lascannon cannot 1 shot it anymore. And in fact may need a bunch of Lascannon shots hitting to take it out reliably. We don't know yet. But removing the 1 shot may equal 1 kill issue with vehicles is a huge help for them
Iam a huge fun of making vehicles stronger... much stronger but adding lasguns the list of weapons that can hurt them isn't a step in the right direction IMHO.
Bottle wrote: Pete Foley confirms on Twitter that in the new 40k you WON'T be able to shoot in/out of combat
Now if only they'd do the same in AOS, my happy jig would be complete.
Wound rolls dependent on the target and tighter line of sight rules would be nice too.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
theocracity wrote: Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?
Wound rolls depending on your enemy and tighter line of sight rules would be good too.
Can' roll To Wound if they don't get hit in the first place.
If this is:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Now that you've hit, roll to see how many you actually hit!
3. Roll To Wound.
Then that's what this'd cause. If there's no initial To Hit roll, then that's a different story.
If you place a template and roll 2D6 to see how far it scatters to determine if you hit a unit; you can get the same result from just rolling a D6 per shot (just a few for big slow firing guns) to hit and another to wound.
Then templates have to roll to wound and then save. All those rolls average out the result.
No templates gives a few saves (with a mod reflecting yield of the explosive). Then a random roll for damage inflicted. Less rolls means a greater standard deviation, so results are much more hit and miss.
In other words, it's more abstract (so harder to visualise, but faster to do), but the results are similar.
well, with how they got abused by 7E, as opposed to originally being reflective of the most destructive titan mounted weapons, I'd say this is a good thing.
Wonder how they will restat the existing Destroyer weapons. Maybe by making them inflict varying numbers of multiple wounds per hit? If they remove the Destroyer weapon rule, they need to ensure the big models do not become too difficult to kill.
Rayvon wrote: I cant believe this ridiculous Land Raider discussion went on for so long.
They said that anything can hurt anything, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
No one said anything about a load of las guns taking out a land raider.
We're only taking THEIR words to its logical conclusion.
I will bet my last penny that somewhere out there, there is that person with an Imperial Guard Army of 500 conscripts just waiting to take down that Landraider with lasgun fire
In my 25+ years of wargaming, I have learned never to underestimate Planet Geek, because that person always turns up.
If such a situation should arise, then the game designers have only themselves to blame with their "anything can hurt anything" comment.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.
If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.
So when they say everything can hurt everything, but that it would take something in the order of 200 guardsmen to kill a Land Raider in the new rules... does this not create the supposedly crucial depth and challenge that you already enjoy in 7th edition's vehicle rules? Considering, you wouldn't fire those guardsmen at the LR before, and you still wouldn't now. The same decision is present, you still get to pick your targets efficiently.
That's the key thing to take away here: some things being immune to certain weapons was NOT a universal trait in the current edition. Currently existing heavy units like Riptide battle suits were vulnerable to small arms weaponry but only in the order of hundreds of shots. Here's a tactical distinction for you: do you waste 200 lasgun shots at the riptide, or fire at an infantry unit instead? If the target had an AV, there would be no opportunity for that same tactical decision, the choice isn't just obvious it's forced. So by that logic, would you still say the new system 'removes a tactical element'? Is it possible that they actually just changed a tactical element?
Now repeat the same example but instead of lasguns and guardsmen use eldar jetbikes with scatter lasers. Giving everyone the ability to hurt anything can lead to some incredibly blunt lists. It might look as tactical decision making but we have to see the whole game to make up our mind.
Remember that waiting to see the whole picture includes waiting to see how currently OP weapons like scatter lasers get rebalanced under a new rules set.
Currently scatter lasers are so good because they have high enough Strength to glance light vehicle AV, have high ROF and their low AP doesn't matter because AP doesn't matter unless it's 1 or 2 and vehicle's don't get a save anyway. The few HP vehicles have don't matter much because scatter laser strength is just enough to break the binary protection of AV and render it moot.
In new 40k, vehicles will have armor saves and it's likely that scatter lasers won't have great Rend value. They'll still likely have decent strength and ROF, but it might not matter if most shots ping off the armor save and those that get through have to deal with a higher pool of HP.
14 force org charts is enough to give each race (not faction) one, so each one can have a bit of flavour:
1: CSM 2: Daemons
3: SM (various)
4: IG 5: Inquisition (Soroitas etc)
6: Mechanicus
7: Agents
8: Knights
9: Eldar (various)
10: Nids
11: Orks
12: Necrons
13:Tau
14: Generic (maybe allied?)
I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.
so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.
And if they have no other target? The issue with your solution is that if the opponent brings only squads in land raiders I have a lot of entirely useless weapons. With having some ability (however small) to hurt them, I increase the likelihood of getting squads out, it also means I never have units that can do nothing on their turn. Even if all they do is put 2 wounds on it all game, that is better than nothing.
I love games where everything has the potential to hurt anything else in large enough numbers. There's nothing worse than feeling helpless because you don't have the tools to deal with something.
AoS has this, and you don't need to worry about Archaon being taken down by goblin bows unless he is either on one wound of there are hundreds of goblins on the table.
My Steamtank has a 3+ save and 12 wounds. It feels tough to crack. Especially as I can buff its armour give it ward saves and heal its wounds through the game.
14 force org charts is enough to give each race (not faction) one, so each one can have a bit of flavour:
1: CSM 2: Daemons
3: SM (various)
4: IG 5: Inquisition (Soroitas etc)
6: Mechanicus
7: Agents
8: Knights
9: Eldar (various)
10: Nids
11: Orks
12: Necrons
13:Tau
14: Generic (maybe allied?)
FWIW, they previewed a page showing 3 generic FOCs on yesterday's Q&A. Essentially they were just varying sizes of the current CAD, with a bonus to command points if you managed to fill out every slot. The largest FOC gave the most command points, with the intention of giving players an incentive to focus on a single faction rather than picking & choosing the best of each.
Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.
No, but pour enough shots into it and eventually it might hit an exposed part or weaken an area enough to cause damage. Since Terminators are said to have armour like a tank should they also be completely immune to small-arms fire?
First of all armor like a tank is too broad of a term to have an argument about, especially considering the diversity of vehicles in 40k. Second, terminator armor being body armor is inevitably going to have weaker parts like visors or joints. It's juat that they are extremely hard to land s shot on.
An undamaged LR doesn't have that. Having a LR being damaged by some anti-tank weapon means there is such a weapon on the field and even still the whole shoot the damaged part thing is really fishy. But that's not my point.
Realistically the only thing a lot of autoguns would be able to achieve against and undamaged LR is to maybe damage it's visors.
Well lets see if guardsmen poured enough fire to track the Raider, blind the vision blocks, knock out the unarmored guns, blow out the unarmored machine spirit, kill the tank commander and rip up the exhaust ports.....is not the Land Raider dead? The hull remains undamaged.
Guns are armored, save the pintle mounted storm bolter. Not to metion that heavy weaponry is typically pretty sturdy even withour armor, due to the fact that it has to withstand the power of it's own shots. Machine spirit is perfectly safe inside the tank's hull so is it's crew. Only the very top part of exhaust pipes is unarmored but damaging them would give no useful effect in battle at all.
They are armored laterally not frontally and have exposed optics and power cabling. Your next remark makes zero sense what so ever. A barrel and bolt housing only have to withstand the PSI generated by the firing of the round not its "power" whatever that means. The actual machine spirit by canon is the optic system located to the left of the heavy bolters and thus unarmored. The tank commander rides in the open and so will the driver if the vision blocks are impaired, most causalities on a tank is the tank commander from small arms fire. Damaging exhaust would cause significant issues to a tank plus the exhaust all includes most of the ridged back of the raider, which directly leads to the engine.
Erm, what? You do realise that to withstand the pressure you have to buld the barrel out of really durable material, making it pretty much impossible to damage by small arms fire during real combat?
Here's a picture just for you:
The mahine spirit is 2. See how its inside the hull? You know, under the armor and only has wiring connecting it to the sensor?
Do you think that tank commander is somehow unable to get back inside the vehicle and will be hanging out of commander’s cupola untill he is shot dead? Because that's not what happens at all.
Sure, you can maybe knock of the very top part of the exhaust. However I have hard time seeing how this is going in any way impaire the LR in it's current battle scince it's not going to block the gas from coming out.
As for every other comment, you don't seem to know much about how weaponry or armor works. But if you want to keep going on the 'realistic' bent you have your going to keep getting shown why your realism is fantasy.
Ahh, the good old "im smart ur dumb" argument.
Please stop filling the rumor thread with this nonsense. I've had to sift through this ridiculous conversation for actual interesting content all day.
I'm pretty sure there are separate forums for this, maybe take it there?
Not a mod (obviously), just a humble lurker who wants to read about the new edition.
It's Off Topic. We've had a number of on-topic warnings in the past few days. I'm very close to locking this thread and making you all take the discussion to a new, heavily moderated thread. That's right, we'll do stealth edits and play pranks. We'll put words in your mouth and set you against the people in your Friends list.
Bottle wrote: Pete Foley confirms on Twitter that in the new 40k you WON'T be able to shoot in/out of combat
Now if only they'd do the same in AOS, my happy jig would be complete.
It's gonna require a rules rewrite on a lot of warscrolls because for every cannon shooting out of combat that perhaps seems odd, it would be just as odd if Fyreslayers couldn't throw hand axes in combat or if trolls couldn't vomit in combat.
I sit in the fence as to if it should be amended or not :-)
As for 40k I am happy to not see it included as pistols and small arms will likely be able to be used as melee weapons like they can currently.
Capamaru wrote: A Land raider as it stands it is quite easily dispatched by lascannon fire or a plethora of other weapons capable of doing so and widespread among all races. Adding insult to injury now lasguns or bolters or shurikens will be able to do so also, so how about a couple of lascannon shots and then shoot the flashlight guns at it to finish it of... is this dumb enough for you?
Currently, 1 Lascannon shot rolling perfectly equals 1 dead Land Raider, but 4 Lascannon shots rolling perfectly equals 1 still fully functional Riptide. Is that dumb enough ?
In #New40k a Lascannon may do D6 wounds, and Land Raiders will probably have 13+ wounds. So 1 Lascannon cannot 1 shot it anymore. And in fact may need a bunch of Lascannon shots hitting to take it out reliably. We don't know yet. But removing the 1 shot may equal 1 kill issue with vehicles is a huge help for them
The disadvantage is though that LR become more vulnerable to everything else and they will lose that hard as nails view because any heavy weapon can damage. High accuracy, high numbers of shots with reasonable amour penetration are likely to be it's bane rather than lascannons. Shuriken cannons, scatter lasers, missile pods, assault cannons and similar may suddenly become the weapon of choice because they have decent damage output against all targets (whereas lascannons might be deemed less effective against some as well as not always hitting).
LRs also potentially become more vulnerable to those weapons that used to have big pie plates (demolisher cannons etc). It would have been one hit before but now you will potentially have them causing multiple hits with multiple wounds depending on their stats. If we assume, for example, a demolisher cannon becomes D6 hits each causing D6 wounds then potentially that's potentially one dead landraider 40% of the time assuming 25 wounds (and the demolisher cannon neuters any amour save). That's on top of, unless you roll one wound, then the LR is likely to severely reduced in capability.
I assume that the new heavy weapon profiles will give the opportunity to ID vehicles and MCs, for a purely hypothetical example:
If I have a vehicle/MC with 10 wounds and shoot at it with a Demolisher cannon that does 2d6 wounds and virtually ignores armour then I could theoretically kill it in one turn. The same vehicle/MC is still going to be pretty resilient to small arms fire though.
well, with how they got abused by 7E, as opposed to originally being reflective of the most destructive titan mounted weapons, I'd say this is a good thing.
Wonder how they will restat the existing Destroyer weapons. Maybe by making them inflict varying numbers of multiple wounds per hit? If they remove the Destroyer weapon rule, they need to ensure the big models do not become too difficult to kill.
I expect they wont. We already know that there wont be a cap on the maximum strength of weapons (S15 Wraithcannons anyone?) and that high powered weapons will strip multiple wounds per unsaved hit. In effect this is what Destroyer does in 7th, so they've made it completely redundent under 8th where the tuning of basic stats is a far simpler method of creating powerful weapons rather than throwing in extra rules and tables.
If you think about it. This discussion just proves two things.
One, a landraider/predator will have a purpose as a huge fire sink on the table. Something they are not right now. Meaning if you spent the points on a predator you actually get something for your points.
The other thing we are seeing with this discussion is people view horde armies as a possible counter to those same predator/landraiders. This in and of itself is good. It means your looking at large number of troops as having any purpose at all.
So, we can agree. It put's a bit of a tactical element into the game. What is your points better spent on?
If you look at the current Armies:
Space Marines: Normally come in two different army types:
Drop pod: Assault armies
Vehicle heavy; Mechanized Armies
This might make the following two armies useful again:
Heavy troop with limited Vehicle armies
Elite armies with lots of terminators/dreadnoughts
And it will be glorious to see the ravaging horde armies again we are looking at you Ork and Tyarnids.
FWIW, they previewed a page showing 3 generic FOCs on yesterday's Q&A. Essentially they were just varying sizes of the current CAD, with a bonus to command points if you managed to fill out every slot. The largest FOC gave the most command points, with the intention of giving players an incentive to focus on a single faction rather than picking & choosing the best of each.
Talking about that, does anyone have the picture/screenshot showing the three FOCs handy? Don't remember where I last saw it and would like to have another look...
Any word or speculation on whether Harlequins will be their own faction - as in they will have an 'official' HQ unit, etc? I haven't played since 5th edition, but from what I understand about recent editions, a all Harlequin list was possible.
Based on AoS, I very much doubt any weapons are going to be both D6 hits and D6 damage. Not only is that a crazy scope of output (1-36 wounds) it's also beyond powerful. Stuff that does high damage is usually limited to a low amount of shots. A demolisher cannon only fires one salvo so it would likely only fire one shot (maybe 2 at most).
dosmill wrote: Any word or speculation on whether Harlequins will be their own faction - as in they will have an 'official' HQ unit, etc? I haven't played since 5th edition, but from what I understand about recent editions, a all Harlequin list was possible.
Yes, they'll still be there.
The only factions I can see getting "removed" are those like Khorn Daemon Kin and Skitarii, and that'll be more because they're getting rolled back into Chaos and Ad mech respectively were they belonged in the first place.
I think you should be able to shoot in or out of hth combat. The game is more cinematic than realistic. I can just see scenes as in Hacksaw Ridge where the Japanese over-ran the Marines. There was a lot of shooting in and out of hth combat in that movie.
Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?
The problem is that, as much as people bring this up, all too often it ends up with a "well...that was dumb" moment of reflection on a rules artifact rearing its ugly head rather than some great epic moment.
Yeah. You quickly learn to spot these moments. When I landed my Shas'El on Ork rear lines, only to be spotted by nearby Gretchin who promptly shot him dead with their antique pea shooters....now that is heroic.
When my pair of Gun Drones was assaulted by squad of IG Veterans, who totally whiffed combat combined with great 4+ saves by me...last remaining Drone won combat by 1, oops, Guardsmen lost their morale roll and Drone has I4...Sweeping advance! All Guardsmen perished under iron boot...threads...er...something...of a single flying frisbee who doesn't even have arms. Heroic, but also real dumb.
Or when I took my Assault team led by Company Master over open terrain towards the objective, only to met by combined firepower of half the Necron Empire. I put my Company Master with his Artificer armour on front, and after horrible defilade of Gaussic firepower, I had made nearly all my saves, my Assault team was untouched and Master had taken 1 wound. Just plain dumb.
Youn wrote: I would guess a demolisher cannon would do 1d6 hits of 2 wounds each with a -2 rend. That alone would make that a stupidly powerful weapon.
That's not too bad by AoS standards. Even if it does 6 shots max, those still need to hit and wound and it might be 4+ and 2+
Ah, like my last game I played were an imperial knight opened up on my techmarine with thunderfire cannon for 3 rounds. All shots were tanked by the techmarine standing in front of his gun.
The 4 thunderfire cannons plus 1 razorback immobilized the Imperial Knight and glanced it out of existance!.
Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?
The problem is that, as much as people bring this up, all too often it ends up with a "well...that was dumb" moment of reflection on a rules artifact rearing its ugly head rather than some great epic moment.
Yeah. You quickly learn to spot these moments. When I landed my Shas'El on Ork rear lines, only to be spotted by nearby Gretchin who promptly shot him dead with their antique pea shooters....now that is heroic.
When my pair of Gun Drones was assaulted by squad of IG Veterans, who totally whiffed combat combined with great 4+ saves by me...last remaining Drone won combat by 1, oops, Guardsmen lost their morale roll and Drone has I4...Sweeping advance! All Guardsmen perished under iron boot...threads...er...something...of a single flying frisbee who doesn't even have arms. Heroic, but also real dumb.
Or when I took my Assault team led by Company Master over open terrain towards the objective, only to met by combined firepower of half the Necron Empire. I put my Company Master with his Artificer armour on front, and after horrible defilade of Gaussic firepower, I had made nearly all my saves, my Assault team was untouched and Master had taken 1 wound. Just plain dumb.
Lots of ways you can interpret just about any game situation. It's all about attitude... forge that narrative!
One of the grots had stolen a very "speshul" shoota from the local mekboy - the battlesuit commander never expected one of their 'antique pea shooters' to be a one-shot mini-plasma cannon... the unfortunate grot thief surely won't be seeing anything ever again!
A team of guard veterans charge over a hill towards the Tau lines, encountering some small resistance on the way: a pair of gun drones. Against all odds, the damned things won't go down, despite las and bayonet and grenade. Realizing the drones have left them completely exposed, a moment of panic quickly becomes a rout. The gun drones barely notice any of this: they just systematically gun down every target they can see, one at a time, methodically slaughtering the veterans even as they retreat...
And come on, a Space Marine hero striding into battle, leading from the front as shots deflect uselessly off their ancient artificer armour... that's about as classic 40k as you can get.
Bottle wrote: Based on AoS, I very much doubt any weapons are going to be both D6 hits and D6 damage. Not only is that a crazy scope of output (1-36 wounds) it's also beyond powerful. Stuff that does high damage is usually limited to a low amount of shots. A demolisher cannon only fires one salvo so it would likely only fire one shot (maybe 2 at most).
Edit - Nevermind apparently talking about the potential rules implications of the new 40k is off topic
I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.
so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.
And if they have no other target? The issue with your solution is that if the opponent brings only squads in land raiders I have a lot of entirely useless weapons. With having some ability (however small) to hurt them, I increase the likelihood of getting squads out, it also means I never have units that can do nothing on their turn. Even if all they do is put 2 wounds on it all game, that is better than nothing.
ok, looking at a standard game, your enemy is a tank company, you gave only brought Bolter guys
old edition, you can try to get in the back for a lucky shot, but trying to kill them is pointless, so ignore them and aim for fulfilling the mission targets
new edition, no need to get in his back as you can try your lucky shot from the front, but it is pointless trying to kill them, so aim for fulfilling the mission targets
so adding the rule just for people to believe they can do something and/or make it possible that some guy with a lucky dice roll (the 10 bolter guys rolled 20 6s and killd one Raider each round) is pointless, as a different rule would improve the game by adding a valid option instead of just adding a rule that the devs call "pointless" before the game is out
Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?
The problem is that, as much as people bring this up, all too often it ends up with a "well...that was dumb" moment of reflection on a rules artifact rearing its ugly head rather than some great epic moment.
Yeah. You quickly learn to spot these moments. When I landed my Shas'El on Ork rear lines, only to be spotted by nearby Gretchin who promptly shot him dead with their antique pea shooters....now that is heroic.
When my pair of Gun Drones was assaulted by squad of IG Veterans, who totally whiffed combat combined with great 4+ saves by me...last remaining Drone won combat by 1, oops, Guardsmen lost their morale roll and Drone has I4...Sweeping advance! All Guardsmen perished under iron boot...threads...er...something...of a single flying frisbee who doesn't even have arms. Heroic, but also real dumb.
Or when I took my Assault team led by Company Master over open terrain towards the objective, only to met by combined firepower of half the Necron Empire. I put my Company Master with his Artificer armour on front, and after horrible defilade of Gaussic firepower, I had made nearly all my saves, my Assault team was untouched and Master had taken 1 wound. Just plain dumb.
Lots of ways you can interpret just about any game situation. It's all about attitude... forge that narrative!
One of the grots had stolen a very "speshul" shoota from the local mekboy - the battlesuit commander never expected one of their 'antique pea shooters' to be a one-shot mini-plasma cannon... the unfortunate grot thief surely won't be seeing anything ever again!
A team of guard veterans charge over a hill towards the Tau lines, encountering some small resistance on the way: a pair of gun drones. Against all odds, the damned things won't go down, despite las and bayonet and grenade. Realizing the drones have left them completely exposed, a moment of panic quickly becomes a rout. The gun drones barely notice any of this: they just systematically gun down every target they can see, one at a time, methodically slaughtering the veterans even as they retreat...
And come on, a Space Marine hero striding into battle, leading from the front as shots deflect uselessly off their ancient artificer armour... that's about as classic 40k as you can get.
sometimes these things are fine. The mighty Space Marine hero at the front tanking the fire for his comrades works fine against a hail of plasma gun fire from the front deflecting off his stormshield. That works.
When a demolosher cannon or a hail of artillery shells hits amidst the squad however, it makes zero sense that the character tanks all the damage from that leaving everyone else caught in the explosion miraculously unharmed. That sort of thing is a bad rules artifact that results in a "that was dumb moment".
There is a line between these two things.
That said, I am totally willing to live with Land Raiders and other thanks being killed by lasguns or bolters if it means overall they are more functional than they are now and better balanced vs MC's, vehicles are in an awful state right now, and it doesn't sound like such weapons will be particularly more effectice than they are now against units like Riptides, so it probably wont be a huge deal.
But not every improbable event is cinematic or epic, they can just end up being nonsensical or dumb.
I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.
so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.
And if they have no other target? The issue with your solution is that if the opponent brings only squads in land raiders I have a lot of entirely useless weapons. With having some ability (however small) to hurt them, I increase the likelihood of getting squads out, it also means I never have units that can do nothing on their turn. Even if all they do is put 2 wounds on it all game, that is better than nothing.
ok, looking at a standard game, your enemy is a tank company, you gave only brought Bolter guys
old edition, you can try to get in the back for a lucky shot, but trying to kill them is pointless, so ignore them and aim for fulfilling the mission targets
new edition, no need to get in his back as you can try your lucky shot from the front, but it is pointless trying to kill them, so aim for fulfilling the mission targets
so adding the rule just for people to believe they can do something and/or make it possible that some guy with a lucky dice roll (the 10 bolter guys rolled 20 6s and killd one Raider each round) is pointless, as a different rule would improve the game by adding a valid option instead of just adding a rule that the devs call "pointless" before the game is out
So the effects cause essentially the same game play situation (it's best to ignore them and play to objectives), but since they no longer need to spend page count explaining how vehicle armor and facings act differently than regular armor they can fit the core rules in all of the codexes and we don't have to drag around a separate book anymore.
That's not really tactics though, that's just list building and purchasing decisions. The only tactical element of that is knowing your local metagame, which will still be important - there's just less chance of there being binary games where you hardly have a reason to even put models on the table.
I mean, in your example, 9 times out of 10 shotgun beats bow - but that doesn't mean the bow has literally no point in even picking up the dice.
Given the amount of choice that exists in Infinity, even in a non-tournament environment against my mates I have no idea what they might bring, so can't build a list to counter that. Plus I would always build my list for the mission not to counter my opponent. Match-ups are decided at the stage of deployment and as the game evolves, especially when camo is factored in. Tactical depth. Of course luck is a factor, it's a dice game, but the best players mitigate this by picking good match-ups whether it be with range-bands, MSV vs camo etc. etc.
Sydrian wrote:
So to point out how stupid a system where everything can hurt everything is, we use an example from a game where everything can hurt everything?
Hence 'nine times out of ten'. Try relying on the crit mechanic with a combi-rifle against a jotum and see what happens. Instead, what you would do is use a hacker. Using the right tool for the right job is what gives Infinity so much tactical depth and was an important part of what made 40k compelling, and it would be a shame to see it go.
That one is always difficult for a wargame. It makes it difficult to plan the next moves reasonably especially if you only get one set of actions. You don't know whether to set up an assault for next turn or not.
That's not really tactics though, that's just list building and purchasing decisions. The only tactical element of that is knowing your local metagame, which will still be important - there's just less chance of there being binary games where you hardly have a reason to even put models on the table.
I mean, in your example, 9 times out of 10 shotgun beats bow - but that doesn't mean the bow has literally no point in even picking up the dice.
Given the amount of choice that exists in Infinity, even in a non-tournament environment against my mates I have no idea what they might bring, so can't build a list to counter that. Plus I would always build my list for the mission not to counter my opponent. Match-ups are decided at the stage of deployment and as the game evolves, especially when camo is factored in. Tactical depth. Of course luck is a factor, it's a dice game, but the best players mitigate this by picking good match-ups whether it be with range-bands, MSV vs camo etc. etc.
But in current 40k some matchups are just completely pointless due to the binary nature of AV. There's no tactical choice of whether my Lootas should shoot at a Land Raider - they couldn't hurt it if they tried, no matter how the game is evolving. I would think there would be more tactical choice if I had to decide whether I should shoot a high priority target, even if I have a low chance of actually doing damage, vs a low priority target that's more squishy.
Sydrian wrote:
So to point out how stupid a system where everything can hurt everything is, we use an example from a game where everything can hurt everything?
Hence 'nine times out of ten'. Try relying on the crit mechanic with a combi-rifle against a jotum and see what happens. Instead, what you would do is use a hacker. Using the right tool for the right job is what gives Infinity so much tactical depth and was an important part of what made 40k compelling, and it would be a shame to see it go.
How is that different from using a Bolter squad against a Land Raider vs using drop pod meltas?
Future War Cultist wrote: So S v T remains? It must have been reworked though. I'm...ok with it. I was all geared up for flat rolls but I'll live with this.
I'm not sure why. It could still use the same principles (1 always misses, 6 always hits. 2+ if you are over double SvT, 3+ if under double, 4+ equal SvT and vice versa.)
KiloFiX wrote: Foley answered some more questions on twitter regarding 8th today:
No D weapons.
No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).
Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).
Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).
No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).
Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.
I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.
Fixed to hit with rerolls of certain values is effectively the same as BS. How is hit on 3+ different form BS 4? (other than the extra calculation/thing to explain)
Will make the biggest difference in cc. It removes a mechanic (WS vs WS), streamlining the process. Which I'm for.
Future War Cultist wrote: So S v T remains? It must have been reworked though. I'm...ok with it. I was all geared up for flat rolls but I'll live with this.
This game might actually have some legs. Thank goodness they didn't go down the route of flat to wound rolls.
Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.
Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?
Consider this scenario:
An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.
The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc
99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.
In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.
I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.
Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.
Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?
I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.
But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me
That one is always difficult for a wargame. It makes it difficult to plan the next moves reasonably especially if you only get one set of actions. You don't know whether to set up an assault for next turn or not.
So it makes it even more strategic, because you're forced to plan 2,3,4 turns ahead if the roll goes with or against you. Look at the Lord of the Rings sbg to see how that is implemented very well.
Future War Cultist wrote: So S v T remains? It must have been reworked though. I'm...ok with it. I was all geared up for flat rolls but I'll live with this.
This game might actually have some legs. Thank goodness they didn't go down the route of flat to wound rolls.
I would have preferred a radical departure and eliminated S vs T anyway. I would have preferred a complete redesign of the game from the ground up, with a focus on mechanical elegance (core task resolution system, etc). "Wounding" makes no sense anyway and is a weird holdover from earlier games that 40k (and Warhammer 1) lifted it's mechanics from.
I like the random initiative in AoS, but I think in 40k it's good to have variety and in the new 40k it seems the spending of "command points" will break the IGOUGO nature of the game.
AoS does this with the initiative roll and combat activation, 40k will does this with the command points and perhaps other mechanics.
Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.
Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?
Consider this scenario:
An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.
The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc
99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.
In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.
I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.
Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.
Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?
I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.
But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me
They could always create a special rule on the warscroll of each unit that gets priority against charges:
Seasoned Warrior, Ancient Hero, Furious Beast: This model has priority when charged. If it is charged by a model with Seasoned Warrior/Ancient Hero/Furious Beast, whoever has the highest X or rolls the highest on a D6 gets initiative.
A total hypothetical, but it would eliminate your worry, but still give you a reason to charge units with that rule with mobs if they were big enough to weather the storm.
Even simpler, you could just have it as a keyword with an a 30 word exception in the core rules.
I would have preferred a radical departure and eliminated S vs T anyway. I would have preferred a complete redesign of the game from the ground up, with a focus on mechanical elegance (core task resolution system, etc). "Wounding" makes no sense anyway and is a weird holdover from earlier games that 40k (and Warhammer 1) lifted it's mechanics from.
What is "core task resolution system"?
Idea of wounding mechanic is to provide two different levels of unit toughness, to both simulate units with physical differences, and give more variations for armies etc. Of course you could just have multi-wound models instead, but that would bring out more in-game bookkeeping.
I am not crazy about Command points. I have never liked such systems anywhere, they always feel like an artificial addition on top of a system which really should work without them.
EmberlordofFire8 wrote: I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.
Hopefully there's a good design mechanic that eliminates any tables to consult. I am hoping, if S>T, need 3. S=T need 4. S<T, need 5. The end.>
Never understood why anyone needs to consult a table for this. Even with the current system it's easy . It's not like there are some irregular steps. Like S4 would wound W3 still on a 4+ but S5 wounds W4 on a 3+. You always add or subtract the difference to the roll.
But with you example it would be horrible, as any weapon would wound even the toughest targets on a 5+ . Now that would enrage me when your guardsmen wound my tank on a 5+
I was surprised because they mentioned that they were reworking it so that you only need to know your own models rules, which suggested flat rolls. But still, it's not a big deal.
If they aren't using the initiative roll I hope they find another way to break up IGYG.
Capamaru wrote: I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...
Someone did the math earlier and I believe it would take 100 guardsmen a total of 11 rounds of continuos fire to down a land raider. (maybe it was 50 guardsmen - either way a completely unrealistic game situation).
Except they based it on a stupidly large amount of hp and completley ignored the other new change which reinforces the anything can kill anything is bollocks. That is that the Land Raiders capabilities degrade with dmg done, the 50grots/guardsmen might only strip 3 to 4 hp but that could dramatically change the LR offensive and defensive capabilities. Including but not limited to increasing it's to hit roll, reducing it's attacks, reducing it's weapon strength, reducing it's move value, permanently reducing it's armour save. So the 2nd round of firing is against a now plus 3 armour save allowing more damage and a further degradation of abilities allowing 75pts of infantry to stop 275 pts of tank.
Also it's why most(not all) monstrous creatures/mounts are considered a points sink and very inefficent and those that are popular are mostly fire and forget and have to make there points back in one round of combat before there degraded down to uselessness(for there large points cost).
I think the reason there is a wound roll is not out of any attempt at realism, rather it exists because GW needed to find a way to extend the odds on a d6 roll. They are trying to do on a d6 what other systems use a d20 for.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.
If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.
Anything can hurt anything in Infinity, thanks to crits, anyway. That doesn't mean anything is a viable strategic target to anything else. If you can hurt a tank but the chances are very very slim, you're still better off picking a better target.
Smellingsalts wrote: I think the reason there is a wound roll is not out of any attempt at realism, rather it exists because GW needed to find a way to extend the odds on a d6 roll. They are trying to do on a d6 what other systems use a d20 for.
D10 or D20 would be pretty cumbersome on a scale of 40k game.
Capamaru wrote: I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...
Someone did the math earlier and I believe it would take 100 guardsmen a total of 11 rounds of continuos fire to down a land raider. (maybe it was 50 guardsmen - either way a completely unrealistic game situation).
Except they based it on a stupidly large amount of hp and completley ignored the other new change which reinforces the anything can kill anything is bollocks. That is that the Land Raiders capabilities degrade with dmg done, the 50grots/guardsmen might only strip 3 to 4 hp but that could dramatically change the LR offensive and defensive capabilities. Including but not limited to increasing it's to hit roll, reducing it's attacks, reducing it's weapon strength, reducing it's move value, permanently reducing it's armour save. So the 2nd round of firing is against a now plus 3 armour save allowing more damage and a further degradation of abilities allowing 75pts of infantry to stop 275 pts of tank.
Also it's why most(not all) monstrous creatures/mounts are considered a points sink and very inefficent and those that are popular are mostly fire and forget and have to make there points back in one round of combat before there degraded down to uselessness(for there large points cost).
Dismisses a cited argument because they used made up data.
Proceeds to simply make gak up to counter the idea.
Capamaru wrote: I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...
Someone did the math earlier and I believe it would take 100 guardsmen a total of 11 rounds of continuos fire to down a land raider. (maybe it was 50 guardsmen - either way a completely unrealistic game situation).
Except they based it on a stupidly large amount of hp and completley ignored the other new change which reinforces the anything can kill anything is bollocks. That is that the Land Raiders capabilities degrade with dmg done, the 50grots/guardsmen might only strip 3 to 4 hp but that could dramatically change the LR offensive and defensive capabilities. Including but not limited to increasing it's to hit roll, reducing it's attacks, reducing it's weapon strength, reducing it's move value, permanently reducing it's armour save. So the 2nd round of firing is against a now plus 3 armour save allowing more damage and a further degradation of abilities allowing 75pts of infantry to stop 275 pts of tank.
Also it's why most(not all) monstrous creatures/mounts are considered a points sink and very inefficent and those that are popular are mostly fire and forget and have to make there points back in one round of combat before there degraded down to uselessness(for there large points cost).
If you're going to take issue with people making guesstimates about unknown unit statistics - which is a fair point to make - you probably shouldn't follow it up with further guesstimates about what the unknown damage table looks like. :p
Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.
Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?
Consider this scenario:
An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.
The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc
99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.
In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.
I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.
Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.
Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?
I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.
But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me
Totally see your point, but how would you realise this? What would be considered a flank charge? I'm totally against facing in a high model count game like 40k. It would be just to tedious for me to set up everyones facing. And as modern models are dynamic as hell it's hard to tell where the actual front is.
There are a number of situations where chargers striking first would be justified:
If a command point is used to give our initiative 2 Orks the waaagh power or something then yeah, they go before the I8 prince.
Nurgle marines could distract the prince with a cloud of flies or something. A Tau battle suit could go stealth for a few seconds before re-appearing, thus distracting the prince and so on...
Equally, if the prince is standing next to terrain, say a wood, then Orks charging out of terrain would be justified at striking first in my book, as that would represent a prepared ambush or something.
Also, the reverse should be true. Greater daemon of Slaanesh is charged by humans, then the Greater daemon could drop a command point to make them strike last, which would be justified by the fluff.
I have no problem with the above happening, but a blanket charge = strike first, is not justified in my book.
Maybe things will be different when more details are forthcoming?
KiloFiX wrote: Foley answered some more questions on twitter regarding 8th today:
No D weapons.
No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).
Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).
Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).
No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).
Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.
All of this seems good. The three things I dislike most about AOS were not ported to 40K, so I'm really happy. I'm also happy to see AOS monster damage mechanics in 40K; that's a good system.
I'm not exactly thrilled about everything-can-hurt everything, but if odds are low enough, it's not a big deal. Overall, the game seems to be heading in good direction.
Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.
Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?
Consider this scenario:
An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.
The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc
99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.
In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.
I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.
Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.
Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?
I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.
But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me
They could always create a special rule on the warscroll of each unit that gets priority against charges:
Seasoned Warrior, Ancient Hero, Furious Beast: This model has priority when charged. If it is charged by a model with Seasoned Warrior/Ancient Hero/Furious Beast, whoever has the highest X or rolls the highest on a D6 gets initiative.
A total hypothetical, but it would eliminate your worry, but still give you a reason to charge units with that rule with mobs if they were big enough to weather the storm.
Even simpler, you could just have it as a keyword with an a 30 word exception in the core rules.
That would be a good compromise in my book with the use of key words. As always balance is the key.
Let's focus on the new charge rules that are being proposed: chargers strike first.
Years ago, in various other versions of Warhammer fantasy/40k I was always in favour of that. Not now. Why?
Consider this scenario:
An average Ork, initiative 2, charges an Elder Prince or something similar, initiative 8.
The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc
99 times out of 100, the Eldar prince should easily evade the clumsy attacks of your average Ork and probably win the fight.
In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.
I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.
Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.
Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?
I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.
But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me
Totally see your point, but how would you realise this? What would be considered a flank charge? I'm totally against facing in a high model count game like 40k. It would be just to tedious for me to set up everyones facing. And as modern models are dynamic as hell it's hard to tell where the actual front is.
Facing is a pain, no question there, so it would have to be a majority of the unit. None the less, Maelstrom's Edge, with its clever bases, makes clear what a model's facing is, and it doesn't slow down the game.
EmberlordofFire8 wrote: I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.
Hopefully there's a good design mechanic that eliminates any tables to consult. I am hoping, if S>T, need 3. S=T need 4. S<T, need 5. The end.>
If they follow the AoS template, it'd be:
A successful To Wound roll is 4+. For every point your attack's S is higher than the opponent's T, add +1 to the roll; for every point the T is higher than S, subtract -1. Unmodified rolls of 6 are always successful, unmodified rolls of 1 are always failures.
I've swayed back and forth on my opinions. Some things I like, other I don't, others I am on the fence about.
I started playing in 3rd edition, so after 17 years of gaming this will be the first major shake-up of the game sequence for me. Completely learning the rules from scratch wasn't something I've been looking forward to.
On the other hand, trimming the rules down to 14 pages does make it easier to teach others, which is a major positive. My wife didn't want to learn to play back in 5th edition because it was WAY too complicated for someone that only occasionally plays. This is also helped by trimming down the time required to play.
I do like that they are solving the vehicle/monstrous creature power gap by making them the same thing. Something that only a major rules rewrite could have done. That being said, I still hope there will be the equivalent of armor facings, even if this means monstrous creatures get it too.
The thing that makes me the most excited is the claim that this was extensively playtested by both GW and external sources, and that it will be a somewhat living game that updates things to fix holes. No more "tyranids suck" for a decade, or "Tau are stupidly OP" for an entire edition.
I think the idea for the eldar prince might be that due to his speed it would be difficult for the orks to get off a charge unless he is placed out of position. With movement values if Orks move 5" and the prince moves 8", he should typically get the charge, unless he has moved to engage another unit. We also don't know how to hit will work as far as modifiers. Maybe orks will strike first but have a hard time hitting, or as others have said maybe he will "always strike first" I think in general until we know what the rules actually are it is hard to know how good or bad anything will be. I will say I trust the groups that playtested the game to have done a good job.
KiloFiX wrote: Foley answered some more questions on twitter regarding 8th today:
No D weapons.
No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).
Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).
Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).
No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).
Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.
No D weapons seems to be a natural outgrowth of the system, so that's good.
No shooting in/out of combat and the S/T system are minor disappointments, but then 40k is a much shootier game than AoS. That smacks of something that was adjusted from playtesting reports.
No random turn Initiative is fine given that we also don't have alternating combat activations, and with Command Points encouraging more active turn-to-turn engagement.
I'm surprised the rules are that long even without the battleforged/FoC stuff. When I heard it I assumed that the 14 new FoCs accounted for a lot of the new page count.
EmberlordofFire8 wrote: I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.
Hopefully there's a good design mechanic that eliminates any tables to consult. I am hoping, if S>T, need 3. S=T need 4. S<T, need 5. The end.>
If they follow the AoS template, it'd be:
A successful To Wound roll is 4+. For every point your attack's S is higher than the opponent's T, add +1 to the roll; for every point the T is higher than S, subtract -1. Unmodified rolls of 6 are always successful, unmodified rolls of 1 are always failures.
Errr, that's how 40K already works?
You've never really needed the SvT table, you just needed to figure the relationship out, which is what you describe, and the threshold where things couldn't wound.
I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.
so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.
And if they have no other target? The issue with your solution is that if the opponent brings only squads in land raiders I have a lot of entirely useless weapons. With having some ability (however small) to hurt them, I increase the likelihood of getting squads out, it also means I never have units that can do nothing on their turn. Even if all they do is put 2 wounds on it all game, that is better than nothing.
ok, looking at a standard game, your enemy is a tank company, you gave only brought Bolter guys
old edition, you can try to get in the back for a lucky shot, but trying to kill them is pointless, so ignore them and aim for fulfilling the mission targets
new edition, no need to get in his back as you can try your lucky shot from the front, but it is pointless trying to kill them, so aim for fulfilling the mission targets
so adding the rule just for people to believe they can do something and/or make it possible that some guy with a lucky dice roll (the 10 bolter guys rolled 20 6s and killd one Raider each round) is pointless, as a different rule would improve the game by adding a valid option instead of just adding a rule that the devs call "pointless" before the game is out
So the effects cause essentially the same game play situation (it's best to ignore them and play to objectives), but since they no longer need to spend page count explaining how vehicle armor and facings act differently than regular armor they can fit the core rules in all of the codexes and we don't have to drag around a separate book anymore.
Seems like a win to me.
who said that facings are gone?
and yes, if replacing one picture in the book (of course this one picture was the only reason for the rulebook to need more than 12 pages....) with another in-game factor that need to be considered during balancing (which was already to complicated for GW) that don't add any benefit to the game is a win for, this ok
I just see that GW did not really learn anything from the past, and streamlining or making rules easier means for them replacing a not needed in game mechanic with different not needed mechanic but the new one will be harder to balance.
You've never really needed the SvT table, you just needed to figure the relationship out, which is what you describe, and the threshold where things couldn't wound.
For sure, I was just rewording it to be more in line with the current system of "roll, plus modifiers" rather than "consult this table."
JohnnyHell wrote: Apparently this thread's obsession takes more mod posts to kill than the hypothetical tank does lasguns...
HA
Automatically Appended Next Post: Something I thought of but nobody mentioned, it seemed only a year or two ago a lot of people were complaining about GW's belief that they were a model company that happened to have some rules.
It's really refreshing to see that turned on it's head, it's clear they've put a huge amount of effort into the gaming side of things, and trying to please their gaming base.
Initiative's completely gone eh? That's got some big implications for some armies.
TonyL707 wrote: And dreadnoughts with 8 wounds. How many lasguns is that?
Ah, man... we're going to be hearing this all the time now aren't we? It's the new "scatbikes". Whenever a new unit comes out, it'll be "how many lasguns to kill? hurr hurr..."
and yes, if replacing one picture in the book (of course this one picture was the only reason for the rulebook to need more than 12 pages....) with another in-game factor that need to be considered during balancing (which was already to complicated for GW) that don't add any benefit to the game is a win for, this ok
Many assume that facings will be gone, as MC's don't have them and they have combined MC and Vehicle profiles. Also, if implemented the new system would not be any simpler than the old one, so what would be the point?
Dread with only 8 wounds and 3+ save? That seems more fragile than I thought.
and yes, if replacing one picture in the book (of course this one picture was the only reason for the rulebook to need more than 12 pages....) with another in-game factor that need to be considered during balancing (which was already to complicated for GW) that don't add any benefit to the game is a win for, this ok
Many assume that facings will be gone, as MC's don't have them and they have combined MC and Vehicle profiles. Also, if implemented the new system would not be any simpler than the old one, so what would be the point?
Dread with only 8 wounds and 3+ save? That seems more fragile than I thought.
As opposed to now, where I hit it on front AV with a krak missile, then roll a five and a six and it dies instantly?
Alpharius wrote: Not sure how I missed fixed to hit rolls for melee and shooting.
Not sure how I feel about it.
I'm guessing those rolls can still be modified though, somehow?
Yes, according to Warhammer Community:
You can also see that WS and BS are now standard rolls (Ballistic Skill sort of always was), though you can expect modifiers to both of these stats from in-game effects.
The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc
Which means diddly if he was reading a book when the ork jumped him, or perhaps shooting at something else and directing his underlings
In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.
It stands to reason that if chargers strike first, the extra attack from charging wont make it across the 7-8 gap.
I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.
It was most certainly not ballanced... Not by a long shot, and you're never gonna be able to convince a nid player of this.
Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.
If there is a mechanic for it then sure; a speedy, well trained character should be able to decide to be ready for the assault... but it should come at the expense of their other actions. It makes no sense that they get to move on their turn, run, shoot (perhaps run again (then perhaps trigger ynaari stuff for another shoot) and then still have the attention required to properly prepare to accept some kind of charging assault. If you forgo you shooting, then yes, I am all for you getting to hit first, but as it stood it made no sense in fluff and broke the gameplay for assaulty armies.
Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?
Yes if the prince was doing other things when they got to him.
I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.
Then the prince shouldn'e be doing other stuff on his turn to represent that.
But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me
Being nimble of quick means diddly when you're blindsided. IN the real world and now in the game too.
If you want to bring your godlike reflexes, incredible skills and aeons of experience to bear against a charge, then dont be spending those skills/abilities/resources elsewhere when you get charged. A 'set defence' token or action would solve this, but chargers striking first makes a TON of sense and is a much needed bone for armies that have spent a VERY long time suffering
Jambles wrote: Initiative's completely gone eh? That's got some big implications for some armies.
TonyL707 wrote: And dreadnoughts with 8 wounds. How many lasguns is that?
Ah, man... we're going to be hearing this all the time now aren't we? It's the new "scatbikes". Whenever a new unit comes out, it'll be "how many lasguns to kill? hurr hurr..."
Anything the Lasgun does the Tau Pulse Rifle should do better. Theoretically speaking of course. The problem is there is a large chunk of the tournament scene play testing the rules and a huge amount of people hate the Tau even existing so likely tone us down way more than they should. Eldar probably safe though. I hope I'm wrong. I'm fine with Riptide, Stormsurge, and other Tau nerfs as long as everything else that is currently way more powerful and actually winning tournaments is toned down equally and fairly. I just doubt it will happen.
and yes, if replacing one picture in the book (of course this one picture was the only reason for the rulebook to need more than 12 pages....) with another in-game factor that need to be considered during balancing (which was already to complicated for GW) that don't add any benefit to the game is a win for, this ok
Many assume that facings will be gone, as MC's don't have them and they have combined MC and Vehicle profiles. Also, if implemented the new system would not be any simpler than the old one, so what would be the point?
Dread with only 8 wounds and 3+ save? That seems more fragile than I thought.
a) We don't know if weapons have had their strength values and save modifiers changed. T7 could be the new T8. (Unlikely, but it never ceases to amaze me during an edition change how people take how things are now and try and apply them to the game post jump. Especially in this context where it's changing so much it's invalidating all the supplements.)
b) While we've been told the profiles will do more heavy lifting, we still don't have the complete picture, Dreads can easily have some defensive tech that means they're notably more durable (their armour save can't be modified, for instance) that would mean even if T7 3+ 8W is as 'delicate' as it may be in 7th, that they actually are significantly more survivable.
c) They may now cost significantly less points.
Jambles wrote: Initiative's completely gone eh? That's got some big implications for some armies.
TonyL707 wrote: And dreadnoughts with 8 wounds. How many lasguns is that?
Ah, man... we're going to be hearing this all the time now aren't we? It's the new "scatbikes". Whenever a new unit comes out, it'll be "how many lasguns to kill? hurr hurr..."
Anything the Lasgun does the Tau Pulse Rifle should do better. Theoretically speaking of course. The problem is there is a large chunk of the tournament scene play testing the rules and a huge amount of people hate the Tau even existing so likely tone us down way more than they should. Eldar probably safe though. I hope I'm wrong. I'm fine with Riptide, Stormsurge, and other Tau nerfs as long as everything else that is currently way more powerful and actually winning tournaments is toned down equally and fairly. I just doubt it will happen.
You ok for tinfoil hats buddy, or can I sell you a few?
and yes, if replacing one picture in the book (of course this one picture was the only reason for the rulebook to need more than 12 pages....) with another in-game factor that need to be considered during balancing (which was already to complicated for GW) that don't add any benefit to the game is a win for, this ok
Many assume that facings will be gone, as MC's don't have them and they have combined MC and Vehicle profiles. Also, if implemented the new system would not be any simpler than the old one, so what would be the point?
but this is AoS style 40k there can still be unit with the special rule "if in the back of a model, add +2 to to wound and to hit rolls" and because it is GW, there will be no explanation what the "back" is
If they're using Battleshock then 7 for marines seems low...maybe they'll have a way to get around it. 10 would have been a good number though, since you'd have to kill half the squad to get them scared.
Future War Cultist wrote: If they're using Battleshock then 7 for marines seems low...maybe they'll have a way to get around it. 10 would have been a good number though, since you'd have to kill half the squad to get them scared.
7 is actually pretty high, Stormcast in AoS have Bravery 6 for example.
Crimson wrote: So initiative is gone! How will that work?
Maybe the charged units has initiative until he combat is resolved? Perhaps counters to indicate. Although I can't imagine how that will work will multi-unit combats.
Future War Cultist wrote: If they're using Battleshock then 7 for marines seems low...maybe they'll have a way to get around it. 10 would have been a good number though, since you'd have to kill half the squad to get them scared.
7 is actually pretty high, Stormcast in AoS have Bravery 6 for example.
Hmm Lizardmen are much better and Marines don;t feel fear whilst pretty sure Stormcast can?
Future War Cultist wrote: If they're using Battleshock then 7 for marines seems low...maybe they'll have a way to get around it. 10 would have been a good number though, since you'd have to kill half the squad to get them scared.
7 is actually pretty high, Stormcast in AoS have Bravery 6 for example.
True, it is high, but is it high enough? Yeah probably.
Future War Cultist wrote: If they're using Battleshock then 7 for marines seems low...maybe they'll have a way to get around it. 10 would have been a good number though, since you'd have to kill half the squad to get them scared.
7 is actually pretty high, Stormcast in AoS have Bravery 6 for example.
Hmm Lizardmen are much better and Marines don;t feel fear whilst pretty sure Stormcast can?
Stormcast still feel fear but they are more braver than normal men and women.
Ugh, that is one of the dumbest scenes in a movie. "Hmmmm, let me telegraph my actions to the omnipotent machine because it will sound cool top the audience!"
Please don't use that garbage as proof of anything.
I could see that after the first round of combat, all attacks are made concurrently. No more worrying that the powerfist doesn't get a swing if it survives the first round.
Jambles wrote: Initiative's completely gone eh? That's got some big implications for some armies.
TonyL707 wrote: And dreadnoughts with 8 wounds. How many lasguns is that?
Ah, man... we're going to be hearing this all the time now aren't we? It's the new "scatbikes". Whenever a new unit comes out, it'll be "how many lasguns to kill? hurr hurr..."
Anything the Lasgun does the Tau Pulse Rifle should do better. Theoretically speaking of course. The problem is there is a large chunk of the tournament scene play testing the rules and a huge amount of people hate the Tau even existing so likely tone us down way more than they should. Eldar probably safe though. I hope I'm wrong. I'm fine with Riptide, Stormsurge, and other Tau nerfs as long as everything else that is currently way more powerful and actually winning tournaments is toned down equally and fairly. I just doubt it will happen.
The tournament scene doesn't hate tau. The tournament scene hates DAEMONS, it's dakka scrubs that hate Tau.
Red Corsair wrote: Ugh, that is one of the dumbest scenes in a movie. "Hmmmm, let me telegraph my actions to the omnipotent machine because it will sound cool top the audience!"
Please don't use that garbage as proof of anything.
Rule of Cool wins every time.
If the balance is screwed this time round then at least we can blame the tourney players - although playtesters seldom receive anything other than abuse.........
Ratius wrote: Maybe whomever out numbers in round 2 to gets to go first - some sort of weight of numbers rule?
D6 roll off?
Most casualties done gets initiative round 2?
Two easy answers. Use the movement stat as like previous initiative. Or, player turn dictates who attacks first. Heck, could also use alternating activation like AOS. So there three even.
Sorry if this was answered all ready. This thread is getting hard to keep up with, lol.
Do we know if there is any chance to get a lucky explosion on a vehicle or will every tank now degrade and work until its last HP wound or what ever it will be called?
Red Corsair wrote: Ugh, that is one of the dumbest scenes in a movie. "Hmmmm, let me telegraph my actions to the omnipotent machine because it will sound cool top the audience!"
Please don't use that garbage as proof of anything.
Rule of Cool wins every time.
Yea, I don't know many people that think that line is cool. Maybe if she said, "Dodge that!" after having downed the agent, but telegraphing it to a dude that can't die and shouldn't even be hit after that is stupid, in a movie that does stupid things which says a lot.
Skerr wrote: Sorry if this was answered all ready. This thread is getting hard to keep up with, lol.
Do we know if there is any chance to get a lucky explosion on a vehicle or will every tank now degrade and work until its last HP wound or what ever it will be called?
Based on what we've seen it will be a degrading system but it's possible that the special rules of either vehicles or weapons will allow for an explosive result(Which tbh I hope doesn't happen but I can totally understand why people would still want it.)
Ratius wrote: Maybe whomever out numbers in round 2 to gets to go first - some sort of weight of numbers rule?
D6 roll off?
Most casualties done gets initiative round 2?
Maybe simultaneous?
Alternating activation based on who's turn it is? Would help balance it out a bit if you had to make more than 1 charge to really get the benefit of going first.
Two easy answers. Use the movement stat as like previous initiative. Or, player turn dictates who attacks first. Heck, could also use alternating activation like AOS. So there three even.
The whole chargers strike first breaks a lot of that.
This information gives me some added optimism for the coming edition.
One of my favorite units in the game are my Librarian and Death Company dreadnoughts and I for one am very much looking forward to seeing how they fare with wounds instead of hull points and armor value. One giant frustration of my dreads is they almost ALWAYS died to one hit with a lucky AP:2 penetrating hit 6 roll. It's almost a comedy act at my local store at this point.
Very excited to see more tomorrow. Take it easy for now.
Two easy answers. Use the movement stat as like previous initiative. Or, player turn dictates who attacks first. Heck, could also use alternating activation like AOS. So there three even.
The whole chargers strike first breaks a lot of that.
Not really, I charge I go first, next round we compare movement stats like we used to initiative.
That probably means alternating activation is not a thing, but I am leaving the window open for those command traits. You have no idea if someone can interrupt with a charge yet.
Maybe they'll go the bolt action route and have two units fight until one is wiped out?
Also, I remember an awesome quote about comparisons between the stormcast and the marines. The marines, snatched away at a young age, never got a chance to be humans. They are in effect monsters. The stormcast however lived their lives before dying fighting chaos. They're very aware of the threats posed and they are still scared by them. They're still human in spirit.
Long story short, marines could and should be braver than the stormcast. Which, OK they are, but I was thinking more demon levels of bravery.
Have they said anything about what they plan to do with single shot high damage anti tank weapons? Will Lasguns and Railguns now be viable? Or is it still a matter of wanting more shots on target?
"means models that previously fell just shy of super-heavy status, the Gorkanaut for example, can now punch at the appropriate weight, and become much more survivable."
Gamgee wrote: Have they said anything about what they plan to do with single shot high damage anti tank weapons? Will Lasguns and Railguns now be viable? Or is it still a matter of wanting more shots on target?
I think its safe to say that scatter lasers and multilasers will have less armor save modifying then lascannons. Vehicles having a 3+ save is big. And with weapons potentially doing multiple wounds, yea I think they might be viable.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe they'll go the bolt action route and have two units fight until one is wiped out?
Also, I remember an awesome quote about comparisons between the stormcast and the marines. The marines, snatched away at a young age, never got a chance to be humans. They are in effect monsters. The stormcast however lived their lives before dying fighting chaos. They're very aware of the threats posed and they are still scared by them. They're still human in spirit.
Long story short, marines could and should be braver than the stormcast. Which, OK they are, but I was thinking more demon levels of bravery.
I'd be happy with two units fighting until one is wiped out.
Maybe the new system is this: Unit A charged so strikes first. Unit B fights back, then A, and so on until the last man standing.
If a powerfist is two times strength and a dreadnought is armed with one. Their strength will be 12 because it's no longer limited to 10.
Hitting another dreadnought they would be Strength 12 vs Toughness 7. Or 2+ to wound. I wonder if the instant death rules will still be in play? As nothing will save you from a walker with a powerfist. Even Guilloman only has a toughness 6.
I'm surprised at 1-wound tactical marines. Armor save modifiers make them a lot squishier than now. I wonder how playtesting went down?
I doubt Movement is replacing Initiative. More likely it'll be either simultaneous resolution, or the player whose turn it is attacks first (unless the opponent spends a command point).
It's probably not "fight until one side is wiped out," since they specifically stated that you can't shoot into or out of combat. No way for that to be relevant if combats only last one turn.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe they'll go the bolt action route and have two units fight until one is wiped out?
Also, I remember an awesome quote about comparisons between the stormcast and the marines. The marines, snatched away at a young age, never got a chance to be humans. They are in effect monsters. The stormcast however lived their lives before dying fighting chaos. They're very aware of the threats posed and they are still scared by them. They're still human in spirit.
Long story short, marines could and should be braver than the stormcast. Which, OK they are, but I was thinking more demon levels of bravery.
we really need to see way more than this before we can start talking about whose bravery is to high or low.
Gamgee wrote: Have they said anything about what they plan to do with single shot high damage anti tank weapons? Will Lasguns and Railguns now be viable? Or is it still a matter of wanting more shots on target?
We may see higher strengths on some guns to deal with escalating toughness. These big guns will likely also do more wounds per shot.
So even though a S12 wounds S8 handily you may want to save that shot for a T11 knight.
I'm glad that they chose 6" as the standard movement. It allows more variance between units. If they had gone with 4" being the standard movement for a Marine, units would move far too slow. Instead, we can probably expect units to vary between 4" to 12" inch movement. Also confirmed that heavier units will generally be slower. Terminators go down to movement 5.
Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people, but maybe the scale for that stat is different. A Dreadnought under the old AV paradigm should be analagous to T8 with AV12, but is shown now as T7 in the new rules, does that represent a new scale or is it just a rebalance for including 8 wounds and a 3+ save?
If I recall correctly from AoS rules anti-monster weapons tend to have a high rend value I think that's what it's called. It reduces an opponents armor save.
However they also tend to do a few wounds off damage per hit as well. I think they would use this system in 40k which could make some single shot weapons more viable depending on the math.
Also I hope we see the broadsides heavy riail rifles get a buff relatively speaking. Even in current edition it's too weak.
Gamgee wrote: Have they said anything about what they plan to do with single shot high damage anti tank weapons? Will Lasguns and Railguns now be viable? Or is it still a matter of wanting more shots on target?
You could have read any portion of this thread rather than making the random speculation/sky is falling posts you are prone to making.
Yes. They've said that weapons can cause multiple wounds now with a single hit.
rollawaythestone wrote: 2 wound terminators. Maybe this will be the edition where Dreadnaughts and Terminators actually are good? What a time to be alive.
Terminators should have been 3, Tacticals 2, and Scouts 1.
I am feeling so excited. Redesigning the statlines from the ground up is really excellent. Being free from the design limitations of past editions will give them the room to make units unique and effective. I really like Movement as a stat, and I really like giving out more wounds to things across the board. It allows walking monsters and Dreadnaughts to be useable and make it across the table.
Feeling like they dropped the ball on the issue with Terminators, at least at a glance.
I really feel like they could have done a bit better with a preview by taking an army that people believe to have issues like Tyranids, Orks, or Guard and showing off their stats instead of the posterboys.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people, but maybe the scale for that stat is different. A Dreadnought under the old AV paradigm should be analagous to T8 with AV12, but is shown now as T7 in the new rules, does that represent a new scale or is it just a rebalance for including 8 wounds and a 3+ save?
Interesting stuff.
A Space Marine with leadership 7 is not a problem if a Guardsman has leadership 5 or even 6. It's all relative
Ynnari are the eldar/dark eldar/harlequins that worship the god Ynnead. They're in gathering storm 2. Should be interesting though to see how they get fleshed out as their own thing, considering they're just models from the other armies currently. (with the exception of the triumvirate)
rollawaythestone wrote: 2 wound terminators. Maybe this will be the edition where Dreadnaughts and Terminators actually are good? What a time to be alive.
Tyranids have been mentioned twice in the unit profiles article. Hormies move faster than Eldar (!!!!) and Carnifexs have more (1 more or 5 more?) wounds.
I am frothing for more info on my space-osaur-locust.
Dread with only 8 wounds and 3+ save? That seems more fragile than I thought.
As opposed to now, where I hit it on front AV with a krak missile, then roll a five and a six and it dies instantly?
It doesn't, Krak missile is an AP3 weapon and can't instakill a non-Open topped vehicle.
They said that "everything could hurt everything" and I doubt Dread is an exception. So To Wound mechanism doesn't work like it does now: S3 can wound T7.
Don't know how many hits heavy weapons do, if Lascannon is 1d6 wounds with Rend -2 (equivalent to a powerful gun in AoS), then Dread doesn't seem awfully durable, though it couldn't be one-shotted.
Dread with only 8 wounds and 3+ save? That seems more fragile than I thought.
As opposed to now, where I hit it on front AV with a krak missile, then roll a five and a six and it dies instantly?
It doesn't, Krak missile is an AP3 weapon and can't instakill a non-Open topped vehicle.
They said that "everything could hurt everything" and I doubt Dread is an exception. So To Wound mechanism doesn't work like it does now: S3 can wound T7.
Don't know how many hits heavy weapons do, if Lascannon is 1d6 wounds with Rend -2 (equivalent to a powerful gun in AoS), then Dread doesn't seem awfully durable, though it couldn't be one-shotted.
Your also making it sound like the 7th ed chart is the way it has been forever. As recent as 6th an ap3 weapon could still pop a vehicle in one shot so stop with the harping on vehicles already. I mean I started in 2nd ed and vehicles back then had multiple hit locations and AV that went up to 25, you see me compare everything current to that?
I am feeling so excited. Redesigning the statlines from the ground up is really excellent. Being free from the design limitations of past editions will give them the room to make units unique and effective.
Mmm...I was disappointed that they really didn't. Marines are still WS4 BS4 S4 T4. I was kinda hoping they would be S5 T5 to really make them stand out more. Of course we haven't seen much anything else, maybe S4 T4 isn't that common thing anymore?
Dread with only 8 wounds and 3+ save? That seems more fragile than I thought.
As opposed to now, where I hit it on front AV with a krak missile, then roll a five and a six and it dies instantly?
It doesn't, Krak missile is an AP3 weapon and can't instakill a non-Open topped vehicle.
They said that "everything could hurt everything" and I doubt Dread is an exception. So To Wound mechanism doesn't work like it does now: S3 can wound T7.
Don't know how many hits heavy weapons do, if Lascannon is 1d6 wounds with Rend -2 (equivalent to a powerful gun in AoS), then Dread doesn't seem awfully durable, though it couldn't be one-shotted.
Alright, "as opposed to now where I fire a grav gun and immobilize it for the rest of the game." Is that better?
Dread with only 8 wounds and 3+ save? That seems more fragile than I thought.
As opposed to now, where I hit it on front AV with a krak missile, then roll a five and a six and it dies instantly?
It doesn't, Krak missile is an AP3 weapon and can't instakill a non-Open topped vehicle.
They said that "everything could hurt everything" and I doubt Dread is an exception. So To Wound mechanism doesn't work like it does now: S3 can wound T7.
Don't know how many hits heavy weapons do, if Lascannon is 1d6 wounds with Rend -2 (equivalent to a powerful gun in AoS), then Dread doesn't seem awfully durable, though it couldn't be one-shotted.
Dreads never were particular durable, it is a medium walker, not a tank. And trying to kill 8W T7 3+ with lasguns? that's 144 hits needed.
Gamgee wrote: Have they said anything about what they plan to do with single shot high damage anti tank weapons? Will Lasguns and Railguns now be viable? Or is it still a matter of wanting more shots on target?
You could have read any portion of this thread rather than making the random speculation/sky is falling posts you are prone to making.
Yes. They've said that weapons can cause multiple wounds now with a single hit.
To be fair this thread is huge and I've only been popping in once in awhile.
Edit
I like AoS rules so I'm feeling good. I just hope it's as balanced as they claim it is in practice.
They're the Eldar faction introduced in the Gathering Storm.
Speaking of factions, I've been thinking about the 'five books' and how they'll break down. Here's my prediction:
- Adeptus Astartes (including Codex and variants, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Grey Knights and Legion of the Damned)
- Armies of the Imperium (including Astra Militarum, Tempestus Scions, Adeptus Mechanicus, Imperial Knights, Adepta Sororitas, Inquisition, Assassins, Emperor's Talons and all the others dribs and drabs from the Imperial Agents Codex)
- Chaos (Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons, Thousand Sons, Khorne Daemonkin and presumably Death Guard)
Now, here's where it gets tricky, because the Xenos books could break down in any number of ways, but this is an educated guess based on a couple of broad themes:
- Xenos: Ancient Enemies (Orks, Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Ynnari, Necrons)
- Xenos: New Threats (Tyranids, Genestealer Cults, Tau)
Have I left anyone out? Probably! This split makes the most sense to me though. I don't think you can get away with one book for the entire Imperium, and it makes sense to give Space Marines their own book, since they're the protagonists of the setting. Also, with so much overlap in units, clever use of keywords means they can avoid repetition. A Tactical Squad or Rhino could be assigned a Chaper-specific keyword to synergise with the rest of your army.
Also, seeing a lot of chatter about armour saves and stuff in response to the stat lines. I think everyone needs to be aware that the Rend characteristic (i.e. armour save modifier) in AoS is never better than -3, and even -1 is pretty rare. I would expect a similar scale here, except for really, really big guns. Basically, as has been said, don't try mapping old 40K values onto these - "Ld 7 Marines" isn't some kind of nerf; it's just a new system and a new scale!
Now I do love each unit having different movements.
I'm hoping that walking Hive Tyrants can keep up with them (or at least within synapse). They've got such long legs.
Their comment about the Gorkanaut makes me hopeful. I don't own any of the orkanauts yet, but it makes me think they'll fix a lot of the problem with the big bugs. Also, I always found it weird that stompas were so fast.
I'm really glad they took a long hard look at the core rules and realized some of it needs to be gutted. Unfortunately I traded off the last of my 40k last week as I just have other gaming priorities now. I'll still gladly play with friends minis like the dirty freeloader I am.
I was kind of expecting the profiles to be more different than they are. Like others have said, maybe 2 wounds for a marine and 3 for a terminator. Or a 1+ save on terminators. Also, nowhere near as much of a shakeup in the profiles and how they work as Age of Sigmar was.
And this:
Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly
Why does GW think we want this? After I spend all that time assembling and painting my models and setting up a great looking game, I don't really like having to remove a bunch of my models before they even get a chance to do anything.
Cautiously optimistic. Bringing back different movement values is good, removing initiative and a unified stat line for all models is interesting, but I 'm still not a fan of fixed to hit and wound rolls. From a game design point I get why they went for fixed rolls but they just feel off to me. I'd rather they had added an avoidance stat to use against BS and kept the opposing WS rolls.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I was kind of expecting the profiles to be more different than they are. Like others have said, maybe 2 wounds for a marine and 3 for a terminator. Or a 1+ save on terminators. Also, nowhere near as much of a shakeup in the profiles and how they work as Age of Sigmar was.
And this:
Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly
Why does GW think we want this? After I spend all that time assembling and painting my models and setting up a great looking game, I don't really like having to remove a bunch of my models before they even get a chance to do anything.
Probably because we've spent three years crying about unkillable invisi-stars.
Why does GW think we want this? After I spend all that time assembling and painting my models and setting up a great looking game, I don't really like having to remove a bunch of my models before they even get a chance to do anything.
Because 40k is supposed to be a super grimdark and lethal universe where everything can die like any other redshirt. Or so it was, I guess it changed a lot in the past years.
Your also making it sound like the 7th ed chart is the way it has been forever. As recent as 6th an ap3 weapon could still pop a vehicle in one shot so stop with the harping on vehicles already. I mean I started in 2nd ed and vehicles back then had multiple hit locations and AV that went up to 25, you see me compare everything current to that?
General perception is that Vehicles are too fragile in 7th Edition, so to that it's natural to compare things, no? And in 5th edition Krak Missile penetration one-shotted a vehicle on 5+, despite this, Vehicles were seen as too strong in that ruleset.
(My Dreads tend to die in Melta - it is their nature to get close and there are always tons of Meltaguns waiting there....)
Any way, what matters in the big picture is the averages, sure lucky one-shots sometimes happened but even in 6th Edition a Krak Missile at BS4 had only 2/54 chance (less than 4%) of killing a Dread. Actual durability can be estimated only when we get more information on how weapons work.
If dreads cost what they do now they are pretty amazing (Who wouldn't buy them right now if they were 100 point T7 8 wound MCs?) But we don't know how much they cost.
Termies are twice as durable as they were before, but we don't know how instant death will work, how common save modifiers are, what their weapons will do or what their points costs will be.
Lower LD is good for me, if it means sergeants will have higher LD and actually matter more. If your Space Marine Sarge is LD 8 and a Vet sarge is 9, it might actually make them more important. Same with other armies, if Guardsman are LD 5 but their leaders buff them up a bit it will be good I think. So often now LD rolls (unless modified) seem like a formality.
I like it so far in the vacuum we are looking at it in. I wonder if Initiative will be a weapon stat, and not a character stat. So instead of "Power fist makes you I1" it would just have stats like S = User x2 I = 1. If so I think that could be cool because it allows for more variety in CC equipment.
Bobthehero wrote: -2 rend uh.. it should be -4 at a minimum, this really isn't WHFB or AOS
If weapons get too much Rend, it really defeats the purpose of Armour saves...that Dread would be dead meat if it gets no saves.
That's the point, especially when it comes to tank busting weapons, they should laugh at most armor.
Personally, I hope they are a bit constrained with Rend. I hope most weapons don't have more than a Rend -1 or -2, perhaps -3 for really powerful weapons. Things that previously were AP1 could have stronger Rend -6 or something, but in general i'd like the Rend variability to be pretty low among weapons.
Any news on flyers? I seen I think one of the frontline guys say the flyers should just be call ins that strafe the table but are not placed on it permanently sort of like how they work in many rts games.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people,
it had always been 7, just the sergeant made the troop having 8, until they later removed (they forgot about one edi earlier) the rule that the unit leader improves the LD and just added a plain LD8 to marines
Gamgee wrote: Any news on flyers? I seen I think one of the frontline guys say the flyers should just be call ins that strafe the table but are not placed on it permanently sort of like how they work in many rts games.
What would peoples opinions on that be?
For some yes, but Valkyries and similar flyers that can hover definitely should remain. Perhaps one of their strenght is the ability to both strafe and hover?
Gamgee wrote: Any news on flyers? I seen I think one of the frontline guys say the flyers should just be call ins that strafe the table but are not placed on it permanently sort of like how they work in many rts games.
What would peoples opinions on that be?
There are to-hit modifiers confirmed in the latest post. Could be something as simple as skimmers are a -1 to hit, fliers a -2.
There's lots of recent plastic kits for them, so I'd expect them to have some sort of "table presence".
Honestly these rules seem very finalized to me other than them tweaking the values. I would expect release any month now. As a person who has tested numerous beta games on pc (before it became a lame early access fest).
They're the Eldar faction introduced in the Gathering Storm.
Speaking of factions, I've been thinking about the 'five books' and how they'll break down. Here's my prediction:
- Adeptus Astartes (including Codex and variants, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Grey Knights and Legion of the Damned)
- Armies of the Imperium (including Astra Militarum, Tempestus Scions, Adeptus Mechanicus, Imperial Knights, Adepta Sororitas, Inquisition, Assassins, Emperor's Talons and all the others dribs and drabs from the Imperial Agents Codex)
- Chaos (Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons, Thousand Sons, Khorne Daemonkin and presumably Death Guard)
Now, here's where it gets tricky, because the Xenos books could break down in any number of ways, but this is an educated guess based on a couple of broad themes:
- Xenos: Ancient Enemies (Orks, Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Ynnari, Necrons)
- Xenos: New Threats (Tyranids, Genestealer Cults, Tau)
Have I left anyone out? Probably! This split makes the most sense to me though. I don't think you can get away with one book for the entire Imperium, and it makes sense to give Space Marines their own book, since they're the protagonists of the setting. Also, with so much overlap in units, clever use of keywords means they can avoid repetition. A Tactical Squad or Rhino could be assigned a Chaper-specific keyword to synergise with the rest of your army.
The problem is that they didn't (as far as I heard) explicitly say "five army books".
They said five books, which will cover all the existing factions and what you need to play.
Three or four books(I could see Eldar or Space Marines getting their own book, as the case may be) and then a rulebook/campaign book combo.
Gamgee wrote: Any news on flyers? I seen I think one of the frontline guys say the flyers should just be call ins that strafe the table but are not placed on it permanently sort of like how they work in many rts games.
What would peoples opinions on that be?
There are to-hit modifiers confirmed in the latest post. Could be something as simple as skimmers are a -1 to hit, fliers a -2.
There's lots of recent plastic kits for them, so I'd expect them to have some sort of "table presence".
I hope there's no flat garbage like "-1 to hit" on Skimmers. Makes no sense for some of them to have an innate penalty to be hit.
Wave Serpents, Falcons, etc are about as big as a tank. Them hovering a few feet above the ground doesn't mean they'd be harder to hit.
The new Dreadnouıght would require 111 scatter laser shots to die (S6 no rend 1 dmg assumed)
The old Dreadnought died with only 40 shots even if it had 5+ cover
Thats almost 3 times durability!
the issue will be with larger multiwound weapons. If a Lascannon does something like D3+3 or D6 wounds, then with BS4 and 3 shots, then they will be trivially easy to destroy if the to-wound values are unchanged. Even at D3 or 2 wounds apiece, it'll require fewer average shots than 7E did.
We'll have to see how it turns out, I was hoping to see a bit higher wound values, but I have no idea what damage looks like either, or if big powerful weapons will be less accessible.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people,
it had always been 7, just the sergeant made the troop having 8, until they later removed (they forgot about one edi earlier) the rule that the unit leader improves the LD and just added a plain LD8 to marines
as far as i remember Marines have always been 8 and were 9 with a unit leader, guardsmen were always 7 with an 8 sergeant.
Red Corsair wrote: The las gun thing is getting tired guys. As a DE player I find it hilarious people are not flipping out over poison
Boggles the mind that everyone assumes weapon profiles will remain.
If they do expect more rage about splinter rifles killing that LR then las guns.
That depends on how poison will work.
As for the lasgun, that's one weapon that I don't expect to change much.
But that was my whole point. People keep making leaps of logic in regard to durability or lack thereof. Don't expect 90% of the gear in the game to remain as it is. After all, when 2nd moved to 3rd they altered most things. I mean, I can't be the only person that remembers crazy things like auto canons doing d8 wounds or multi meltas doing d12. Heck, assault canons used to do d10 damage per shot and they used 3 sustained fire dice!
I am betting key words will come into play a lot here. For example, poison weapons having a strength now and wound anything on a minimum threshold unless it has the key word vehicle or construct or what have you. Who knows we need to wait, but I am praying that grav gets a major rewrite.
Gamgee wrote: Honestly these rules seem very finalized to me other than them tweaking the values. I would expect release any month now. As a person who has tested numerous beta games on pc (before it became a lame early access fest).
We already have a good idea when it will be released. The new financial year for Games Workshop starts in June 1st. Eight weeks from April 22nd is June 17th. There was a memo out that said GW employees couldn't take vacation between June 7th (pre-release) and June 17th (Release). Take from that what you will...
but this post. 
