To piont out that vague claims made by GW should not be trusted because they're clearly not trustworthy.
Tyranid players still remember how GW claimed they made an "extensive playdesting" of trainwreck of a Nid codex
All we can trust are some solid rules and mechanics they so far rvealed.
And the word of 3rd party individuals that can attest their affirmation.
I think its painfully obvious that they are making 40k into AoS Deluxe. A few more rules but generally the exact same format so that people can play both and have a jolly good time without investing too much conversion time.
Were'nt people saying that they didnt want 40k to be aosified? I feel that some of these changes are welcome but they are taking it way too far.
I liked the complexity. When an opponent could surprise me i thought the game was interesting.
I'm afraid the psychic phase will be gutted as well. It will just be like shooting weapons except with 2d6 and a variable to hit like in AoS... Double ones are perils? No wait thats a table you have to remember, thats probably gone then...
Yonasu wrote: I think its painfully obvious that they are making 40k into AoS Deluxe. A few more rules but generally the exact same format so that people can play both and have a jolly good time without investing too much conversion time.
Were'nt people saying that they didnt want 40k to be aosified? I feel that some of these changes are welcome but they are taking it way too far.
I liked the complexity. When an opponent could surprise me i thought the game was interesting.
I'm afraid the psychic phase will be gutted as well. It will just be like shooting weapons except with 2d6 and a variable to hit like in AoS... Double ones are perils? No wait thats a table you have to remember, thats probably gone then...
It will be almost as complex, just everything will be consistent and have less bloat and power creep.
Rippy wrote: It will be almost as complex, just everything will be consistent and have less bloat and power creep.
Bloat is kind of a point of 40k. It's powercreep, formations and "decurions" that are killing 40k, and guess what - I haven't heard a word about droping formanions. Moreso I can see that AoS have them too, and new 14+ FoCs (wiith faction-specific FoCs on top) look dangerously close to another decurion BS.
Rippy wrote: It will be almost as complex, just everything will be consistent and have less bloat and power creep.
Bloat is kind of a point of 40k. It's powercreep, formations and "decurions" that are killing 40k, and guess what - I haven't heard a word about droping formanions. Moreso I can see that AoS have them too, and new 14+ FoCs (wiith faction-specific FoCs on top) look dangerously close to another decurion BS.
We are using the word bloat for different things. I mean bloat in what you just described; formations and decurions and special rules etc etc
To piont out that vague claims made by GW should not be trusted because they're clearly not trustworthy.
Tyranid players still remember how GW claimed they made an "extensive playdesting" of trainwreck of a Nid codex
All we can trust are some solid rules and mechanics they so far rvealed.
Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
And I meant special rules and complex mechanics.
For my liking having one universal special rule is superior to 9000 different names for re-roll to hit for each different unit like in AoS
Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
and we still don't know what exactly was tested and if the suggestions of the testers were considered in the final version
To piont out that vague claims made by GW should not be trusted because they're clearly not trustworthy.
Tyranid players still remember how GW claimed they made an "extensive playdesting" of trainwreck of a Nid codex
All we can trust are some solid rules and mechanics they so far rvealed.
Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
Plus the context of talking about how much they playtested it was in response to a question about balance, which implies the playtester critiqued the game to help the balance as opposed to saying "this is unbalanced" to which GW said "ah but it is playtested."
Again, another of a million hypothetical situations but context is incredibly important, they didn't just declare it as if it was a good thing, they used it as a qualifier for their response about balance.
Requizen wrote: Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
Which still doesn't mean gak if they didn't do a good job at analyzing playtesting results.
And we all know GW suck at math.
Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
and we still don't know what exactly was tested and if the suggestions of the testers were considered in the final version
Yes, I'm sure they flew all these people from the states and across EU to Nottingham, playtested for days, took all the feedback, called them out by name on stream in front of everyone... And then just threw all their thoughts out the window and took a dump on the new rules.
Especially after they worked closely with the SCGT organizers to make TGH the hit that it was. Makes sense.
Thing i'll say about playtesting as they'v specifically mentioned a generals handbook approach with updates and they are quite obviously seriously engaged with the community now.
So if they have cocked up there is a good chance amendments will be made.
Yonasu wrote: I'm afraid the psychic phase will be gutted as well. It will just be like shooting weapons except with 2d6 and a variable to hit like in AoS... Double ones are perils? No wait thats a table you have to remember, thats probably gone then...
Thank the gods for that IMO - adding the magic rules from WFB to 40k was a terrible idea - time consuming, finincky and (as usual) badly unblanced - AOS magic is a breath of fresh air compared to the abomination of the psychic phase in 7th ed.
Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
and we still don't know what exactly was tested and if the suggestions of the testers were considered in the final version
Yes, I'm sure they flew all these people from the states and across EU to Nottingham, playtested for days, took all the feedback, called them out by name on stream in front of everyone... And then just threw all their thoughts out the window and took a dump on the new rules.
Especially after they worked closely with the SCGT organizers to make TGH the hit that it was. Makes sense.
You might as well not try. These people are looking for reasons to bitch and moan. They always will.
"They haven't told us EXACTLY what they did and how they tested it and every single minute detail, so it MUST suck" etc etc etc.
I honestly wouldn't bother folks, you're not going to win an argument with someone who responds to a reasonable counter backed up by official information with "yeah, but they're probably just lying."
There's still folk in the nuMarine thread claiming an image pulled from GW's own site is fake, some people just need to be smacked in the face with something before they accept it.
To piont out that vague claims made by GW should not be trusted because they're clearly not trustworthy.
Tyranid players still remember how GW claimed they made an "extensive playdesting" of trainwreck of a Nid codex
All we can trust are some solid rules and mechanics they so far rvealed.
Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
Plus the context of talking about how much they playtested it was in response to a question about balance, which implies the playtester critiqued the game to help the balance as opposed to saying "this is unbalanced" to which GW said "ah but it is playtested."
Again, another of a million hypothetical situations but context is incredibly important, they didn't just declare it as if it was a good thing, they used it as a qualifier for their response about balance.
GW will tell you everything is awesome they have said that about everything they have ever made from AoS at launch to Bomerz over..eww I cannot go there, Dreadfleet is a good example anyway there trying to sell you it they will say whatever they think you want to hear it's there job.
Now I not saying it's not going to be awesome but you should wait for someome who is not from the company or has been reimbursed forl there time testing it to say it is awesome.
I think a few posters in this thread need to sit down and actually watch the live stream GW did. The playtesters have not been ignored. They made that very clear.
To piont out that vague claims made by GW should not be trusted because they're clearly not trustworthy.
Tyranid players still remember how GW claimed they made an "extensive playdesting" of trainwreck of a Nid codex
All we can trust are some solid rules and mechanics they so far rvealed.
Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
Plus the context of talking about how much they playtested it was in response to a question about balance, which implies the playtester critiqued the game to help the balance as opposed to saying "this is unbalanced" to which GW said "ah but it is playtested."
Again, another of a million hypothetical situations but context is incredibly important, they didn't just declare it as if it was a good thing, they used it as a qualifier for their response about balance.
GW will tell you everything is awesome they have said that about everything they have ever made from AoS at launch to Bomerz over..eww I cannot go there, Dreadfleet is a good example anyway there trying to sell you it they will say whatever they think you want to hear it's there job.
Now I not saying it's not going to be awesome but you should wait for someome who is not from the company or has been reimbursed forl there time testing it to say it is awesome.
Yeah, because every other company just comes straight out and says "here's our new product, it's a bit gak really, I'd buy something else."
We're not saying they just ignored bad playtesting results, but there's a word of possibilities between "intentionally making crap" and "doing excelent job", anf GW have a long track record of incompetence and lack of analysis.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zustiur wrote: I think a few posters in this thread need to sit down and actually watch the live stream GW did.
I think some people should think for a minute about the fact that that livestream was shot by community managers - the people who's job is to form a positive public opinion of their product.
GW will tell you everything is awesome they have said that about everything they have ever made from AoS at launch to Bomerz over..eww I cannot go there, Dreadfleet is a good example anyway there trying to sell you it they will say whatever they think you want to hear it's there job.
Now I not saying it's not going to be awesome but you should wait for someome who is not from the company or has been reimbursed forl there time testing it to say it is awesome.
Of course they have, their prerogative is to sell things to the community. The difference between these people and people selling you a toothbrush is that they play the hobby too, and they don't want it to be a bad game to play for themselves. They're moving away from the process of rebooting the game to turn it into a living, adaptable system that can in effect be updated and FAQd forever as opposed to creating huge paradigm shifts ever 3 years.
There's plenty of reason to be conservative and not go out and buy £1000 worth of models before the new rules launch, but there's also plenty of reason to be optimistic about GW showing us bits and pieces from their rules and openly answering questions and addressing concerns that the community have. It's in their best interest to make a game that they enjoy, and we enjoy.
Just like they did with Age of Sigmar, by adding the GHB and finalising the battletome standard with Sylvaneth, which they have been using to update and fix factions like Stormcast and Khorne. You can assume they have ill intent, but if you look at their treatment of AoS since launch it has only improved, and this is reflected in their approach to 8thEd 40k, which is clearly designed to hit the ground running.
If they had no faith in their product, and no desire to make it better... well they'd announce an edition change, burn down the galaxy, and answer no questions until the £80 rulebook that invalidated your army for 5 years was in your lap. This is the total opposite of that. That's not brainwashing or me being a sycophant, it's their response to the anger that End Times caused. They have clearly learned, to suggest otherwise is to be myopic.
With the experience of AoS, I'm pretty confirmed to say that even with all the playtesting (in effect AoS points were in public playtest for a year), there will be some ups and some downs, eventually forming some archtype armies for a meta. Especially with the stuff released later with less playtesting.
That said, for casual gamers, the end result will most probably be much more enjoyable and level. And on the other hand most likely it will be so for the competitive scene as well, but with less variety.
They said they have done more than 15000 (or was it 15hundred?, cant remember) test games with the new rules.
I'm not sure what that means, but im pretty sure it means that they are full of gak.
If they have done a few hundred games i'd be impressed, but that number they used is utter bullcock.
jamopower wrote: With the experience of AoS, I'm pretty confirmed to say that even with all the playtesting (in effect AoS points were in public playtest for a year), there will be some ups and some downs, eventually forming some archtype armies for a meta. Especially with the stuff released later with less playtesting.
That said, for casual gamers, the end result will most probably be much more enjoyable and level. And on the other hand most likely it will be so for the competitive scene as well, but with less variety.
And the beauty of a yearly GHB and the ability to alter and FAQ individual units on the fly due to a lack of reliance on USR is that metas will no longer be fixed for years at a time.
The lack of variety in AoS is largely unfounded I think, it's true that two of the big performing armies at SCGT used Sayl and Skyfires... but one of them was a Seraphon army that nobody expected or anticipated. There's still variety, and its set to change with the release of GHB2 where Skyfires and Sayl will likely be addressed. Better that than waiting for years to have them nerfed to the ground or removed entirely.
The community team's job is also to make the company a believable partner. GW risks destroying all good will and any potential tournament organising partner by ignoring them and the effort spent playtesting.
Reece and Franky mentioned in their podcast: "several 8-10 hours conference calls and months of playtesting."
That gives me some faith they won't chuck it all out the window/ will be careful with what they do. Not to mention we have seen improvements over the last 2 years: GHB and the community team exist, They made the trophies for LVO, Presence at adepticon, doing 8-10 hour skype calls, earlier announcements and teases of products, FAQ's for all armies after lengthy silence , advancing the storyline (and quality of writing: when has that been better? Bolter porn is an old term)
You have to be buried in your garden not to see some improvements in GW. They put a lot of work into convincing people this is going to be better. Unlikely to be entirely a lie.
Yonasu wrote: They said they have done more than 15000 (or was it 15hundred?, cant remember) test games with the new rules.
I'm not sure what that means, but im pretty sure it means that they are full of gak.
If they have done a few hundred games i'd be impressed, but that number they used is utter bullcock.
I am pretty sure they just confirmed they had compared 1500 point games between 7th and 8th to get an estimate on the average length. I haven't seen a number they've quoted anywhere, but I do recall them saying they spent 5-10 hours each day at the weekend simply collating information from their weekly playtesting.
jamopower wrote: With the experience of AoS, I'm pretty confirmed to say that even with all the playtesting (in effect AoS points were in public playtest for a year), there will be some ups and some downs, eventually forming some archtype armies for a meta. Especially with the stuff released later with less playtesting.
That said, for casual gamers, the end result will most probably be much more enjoyable and level. And on the other hand most likely it will be so for the competitive scene as well, but with less variety.
And the beauty of a yearly GHB and the ability to alter and FAQ individual units on the fly due to a lack of reliance on USR is that metas will no longer be fixed for years at a time.
The lack of variety in AoS is largely unfounded I think, it's true that two of the big performing armies at SCGT used Sayl and Skyfires... but one of them was a Seraphon army that nobody expected or anticipated. There's still variety, and its set to change with the release of GHB2 where Skyfires and Sayl will likely be addressed. Better that than waiting for years to have them nerfed to the ground or removed entirely.
Yes I didn't say that there isn't/won't be variety in competitive gaming, I said less variety as understandably some units will eventually be better and will be used more and some worse and used less. I expect that I will have as fun playing with my Word bearers in 40k in the future as with my Slaanesh chaos in AoS, even though both of them won't ever be tournament worthy armies.
Zustiur wrote: I think a few posters in this thread need to sit down and actually watch the live stream GW did.
I think some people should think for a minute about the fact that that livestream was shot by community managers - the people who's job is to form a positive public opinion of their product.
I prefer to think about how a company found to be willfully misrepresenting its products, or features of those products, is committing fraud and can be prosecuted and fined out of existence (assuming the damage done to its reputation doesn't do that first.)
You're allowed to be positive, you're not allowed to lie.
Azreal13 wrote: You're allowed to be positive, you're not allowed to lie.
Oh, but you can withold the whole picture and publish vague hopes and oppinions which is totally legal.
And which is exactly what they're doing.
Note they dodn't say things like "it will be totally balanced" but "in my oppinion it's gonna be the most balanced eddition in a while".
They didn't say how exactly they used the results of that playtesting either - just shared the sheer scale of it.
Any word on how much paper rules will be? Not a fan of the limited runs, but hoping they do like they did with DA and release a starter set with a mini codex.
Azreal13 wrote: You're allowed to be positive, you're not allowed to lie.
Oh, but you can withold the whole picture and publish vague hopes and oppinions which is totally legal.
And which is exactly what they're doing.
Note they dodn't say things like "it will be totally balanced" but "in my oppinion it's gonna be the most balanced eddition in a while".
They didn't say how exactly they used the results of that playtesting either - just shared the sheer scale of it.
So why not sit out and wait to see how balanced 8th really is? No one's forcing you to buy 8th on the day it's released.
Oh, but you can withold the whole picture and publish vague hopes and oppinions which is totally legal.
And which is exactly what they're doing.
Note they dodn't say things like "it will be totally balanced" but "in my oppinion it's gonna be the most balanced eddition in a while".
They didn't say how exactly they used the results of that playtesting either - just shared the sheer scale of it.
So they didn't give objective answers for subjective questions?
I'm lost with what exactly your problem is. They seem to be quite open with their answers here. There are community members all over clarifying things.
So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.
Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
and we still don't know what exactly was tested and if the suggestions of the testers were considered in the final version
Yes, I'm sure they flew all these people from the states and across EU to Nottingham, playtested for days, took all the feedback, called them out by name on stream in front of everyone... And then just threw all their thoughts out the window and took a dump on the new rules.
Especially after they worked closely with the SCGT organizers to make TGH the hit that it was. Makes sense.
You might as well not try. These people are looking for reasons to bitch and moan. They always will.
"They haven't told us EXACTLY what they did and how they tested it and every single minute detail, so it MUST suck" etc etc etc.
guys there is a difference between play testing the core rules to remove unclear situations in the game, to see how the core rules work out in "real" and just testing to balance point cots of units
if the big play test with all the special people out there was "core rules are fixed, just report of units are to cheap or to expensive in matched play"
you get something different than "we want to know of double movement for charges will break the game, pls just test melee only vs heavy shooting lists"
and just doing one of this you still can claim to have done "playtesting"
and of course devs ignore reports that are outside the question in the first place
you have to do that, otherwise you won't get the data you need. if he question is "is melee to strong" every report regarding shooting will be ignored
and than claiming that every existing unit was tested means nothing special if you don't know what was the test about
macluvin wrote: So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.
That people believe GW claims about their new rules being good and balanced before seeing them.
Maybe they would be, who knows, but before we themselves see those rules believing GW managers' claims and spreading them is foolishness, especially after years of of "legally don't count as outright lies" and incompetence on their part.
Zustiur wrote: I think a few posters in this thread need to sit down and actually watch the live stream GW did. The playtesters have not been ignored. They made that very clear.
This interesting video from Recius yesterday point out the fact that they spent 8 to 10 hours in conference calls with GW talking about the rules
That people believe GW claims about their new rules being good and balanced before seeing them.
Maybe they would be, who knows, but before we themselves see those rules believing GW managers' claims and spreading them is foolishness, especially after years of of "legally don't count as outright lies" and incompetence on their part.
Well, Terminators having 2 Wounds and Dreads having multiple wounds is certainly a step in the right direction. Vehicles won't be hot garbage now
macluvin wrote: So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.
I think to summarise, we had;
AoS Sucks
AoS is awesome
New 40k will be like AoS New 40k won't be like AoS New 40k has been playtested extensively
New 40k hasn't been playtested extensively
Land Raiders can be killed by Lasguns
Land Raiders shouldn't be killed by Lasguns
Lots of crying
My precious painted models shouldn't die
I like killing people's precious painted models
Giant Sace Marines are awesome and real
Giant Space Marine pics are fake
AoS still sucks
AoS is still awesome
Did I miss anything?
I'm glad the OP was updated with the video info. Thanks for whoever did that.
How long till GW release 40k? I'm tiring of the panto already. :-(
jreilly89 wrote: Well, Terminators having 2 Wounds and Dreads having multiple wounds is certainly a step in the right direction. Vehicles won't be hot garbage now
I can't wait to field my Monolith and Command Barge under the new rules
Kirasu wrote: Until your dreadnought dies to lasgun anyway
I'm gonna guess Guardsmen firing Lasguns are something like Hit on 4s, S3 against T7 with be 6s only, no armor modifier.
With a 3+ save it'll be 300 shots to deal 8 wounds. I think that's fine.
Unless they're hit on 5s, at which point it's more. I'm sure commands will make it easier.
Just made a math. 1000 pts of guardsmen armed witn lasguns only would FRF a Deadnought in 4 turns assuming none of them die fotr all 4 turns. yeah, totally a waste of firepower
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Since everyone is so obsessed with Lasguns, we can only hope the impending weapons article has their profile.
In the Imperium's darkest hour, the will of the Emperor finally unleashes humanity's greatest secret weapon:
Across the galaxy, the power limiters hidden in the lasgun of every guardsman disengages. Humanity is saved as their enemies are swept away in a tidal wave of searing pink light
macluvin wrote: So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.
I think to summarise, we had;
AoS Sucks
AoS is awesome
New 40k will be like AoS New 40k won't be like AoS New 40k has been playtested extensively
New 40k hasn't been playtested extensively
Land Raiders can be killed by Lasguns
Land Raiders shouldn't be killed by Lasguns
Lots of crying
My precious painted models shouldn't die
I like killing people's precious painted models
Giant Sace Marines are awesome and real
Giant Space Marine pics are fake
AoS still sucks
AoS is still awesome
Did I miss anything?
I'm glad the OP was updated with the video info. Thanks for whoever did that.
How long till GW release 40k? I'm tiring of the panto already. :-(
You missed people pointing out that GW will/may ignore the playtesting or the contrary. As an aside, I'll say you're not the only one by a long shot.
Kirasu wrote: Until your dreadnought dies to lasgun anyway
I'm gonna guess Guardsmen firing Lasguns are something like Hit on 4s, S3 against T7 with be 6s only, no armor modifier.
With a 3+ save it'll be 300 shots to deal 8 wounds. I think that's fine.
Unless they're hit on 5s, at which point it's more. I'm sure commands will make it easier.
Maybe the lowly lasgun has a +1 armor modifier. Making that dread a 2+ sv.
Also do we know if the shadow war range modifier on wpns are coming in any form?
Kirasu wrote: Until your dreadnought dies to lasgun anyway
I'm gonna guess Guardsmen firing Lasguns are something like Hit on 4s, S3 against T7 with be 6s only, no armor modifier.
With a 3+ save it'll be 300 shots to deal 8 wounds. I think that's fine.
Unless they're hit on 5s, at which point it's more. I'm sure commands will make it easier.
Maybe the lowly lasgun has a +1 armor modifier. Making that dread a 2+ sv.
Also do we know if the shadow war range modifier on wpns are coming in any form?
We'll see that today when the Weapon post comes out.
macluvin wrote: So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.
I think to summarise, we had;
AoS Sucks
AoS is awesome
New 40k will be like AoS New 40k won't be like AoS New 40k has been playtested extensively
New 40k hasn't been playtested extensively
Land Raiders can be killed by Lasguns
Land Raiders shouldn't be killed by Lasguns
Lots of crying
My precious painted models shouldn't die
I like killing people's precious painted models
Giant Sace Marines are awesome and real
Giant Space Marine pics are fake
AoS still sucks
AoS is still awesome
Did I miss anything?
I'm glad the OP was updated with the video info. Thanks for whoever did that.
How long till GW release 40k? I'm tiring of the panto already. :-(
You missed people pointing out that GW will/may ignore the playtesting or the contrary. As an aside, I'll say you're not the only one by a long shot.
Well do us all a favour and stop reading it, I promise if anyone is critical of AoS I will just imagine you popping up to say they have never played it will save you a lot of time.
Anyway missed one of the list.
People complaimg about speculation based on the rumours/information we have.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Since everyone is so obsessed with Lasguns, we can only hope the impending weapons article has their profile.
Considering how aware (and self-aware, and mocking at times) the new Warhammer Community people are, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a jab at all the people freaking out about lasguns blowing up their Land Raiders.
DynamicCalories wrote: Of course they have, their prerogative is to sell things to the community. The difference between these people and people selling you a toothbrush is that they play the hobby too, and they don't want it to be a bad game to play for themselves.
So what was the excuse for the folks who came up with 6th and 7th edition who also played the game supposedly according to the white dwarf articles telling us how ZOMG! awesome! they were going to be in allowing Greater Demons to team up with SOB because that's what the community supposedly wanted? And that gave us abilities for free as long as you spent the money on the models because screw the actual in game mechanics? Except for the notable man at the very top, these are mostly the SAME people at GW who enthusiastically sold you the last POS toothbrush that had a bad chemical taste and lost its bristles within a couple of weeks. The onus is on THEM to PROVE they've changed (for the better unlike with 6th and especially Greedhammer $40,000 7th ed); just hinting and pinky swearing they have isn't going to cut it. They've lost the benefit of the doubt with many folks (including myself) and proof is in the actual release of the rules where we see them in their entirety instead of carefully selected vertical slices weeks to months ahead of time. Until they definitely prove otherwise, this is just Mailibu Grimdark Stacy with a new AOS hat.
Don't get me wrong... the changes under the current CEO have been positive (especially after Kirby's disastrous final years which aren't a high hurdle to jump) and I'm open to the possibility that they will get it less wrong this time around and possibly even somewhat right... but I'm not going to jumpt to that assumption based on pre-release marking which has traditionally for years and editions now been wrong. At this point, we're potentially at the fool me three times stage of the idiom (four if you count the horrible initial rollout of AOS). Until they actually release the rules and folks can look at the core mechanics in their entirety, folks like you will have to put up with alot of salt because GW deserves that and more.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Since everyone is so obsessed with Lasguns, we can only hope the impending weapons article has their profile.
Considering how aware (and self-aware, and mocking at times) the new Warhammer Community people are, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a jab at all the people freaking out about lasguns blowing up their Land Raiders.
I hope they include a bespoke lasgun on some unit rule that's specifically called Raider Cracker, or something, that let's a lasgun 1 hit kill a LR once per game.
macluvin wrote: So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.
I think to summarise, we had;
AoS Sucks
AoS is awesome
New 40k will be like AoS New 40k won't be like AoS New 40k has been playtested extensively
New 40k hasn't been playtested extensively
Land Raiders can be killed by Lasguns
Land Raiders shouldn't be killed by Lasguns
Lots of crying
My precious painted models shouldn't die
I like killing people's precious painted models
Giant Sace Marines are awesome and real
Giant Space Marine pics are fake
AoS still sucks
AoS is still awesome
Did I miss anything?
I'm glad the OP was updated with the video info. Thanks for whoever did that.
How long till GW release 40k? I'm tiring of the panto already. :-(
Pretty close, you did forget the "GW sucks and no one should trust them and nothing good ever comes from them" posts, but I think they qualify for the crying bit ;-).
privateer4hire wrote: Guy in a 5 man unit (3 wounds/model) gets hit for 1 wound this turn as he's the only guy visible.
Player moves that guy behind wall and moves an unwounded guy to the previous guy's spot.
That unit takes 2 additional wounds from shooting.
A unit cannot have more than one wounded model at a time (assuming AoS's rules continue for this example).
And? I already covered this in my example. If units are taking wounds, and not models, then this isn't a problem.
The 'and' is if the rules require LOS AND only one model in a unit (ala AoS) can ever any wounds missing at a time, that you get goofy situations and people rotating unwounded stuff into LOS.
So, had a look a their new website thing, and read the entry on necrons.
The Necrons are a race of sentient androids who long ago traded away their souls for the gift of immortality. For millennia beyond counting they have slumbered within their tomb worlds, sprawling crypt-fortresses that house billions-strong armies and ranks of deadly war machines. With every passing year more Necrons arise from this long stasis, and as they awaken so they begin the process of reforging their dynastic empires, which once ruled the galaxy with an iron fist.
To earn their immortality, the Necrontyr sacrificed their very flesh, replacing it with living metal. This renders even the lowliest Necron warrior incredibly resilient and difficult to kill. Yet such strength comes at a terrible cost. The majority of the Necron race are little more than near-mindless thralls, enslaved to the will of cruel Overlords – driven insane by millennia of dreaming stasis – who are still determined to see the Necron Empire rise once more.
Not a bit about them wanting to be fleshy again, or any of that forced tragic drama crap that was in 5th, and makes them out as mindless killing machines once more.
Cautiously optimistic.
Man... GW really is getting their money's worth out of the Space Marine video game soundtrack. I think most every video has been backed by those tracks (and complaints here as I thought they were particularly good).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So, had a look a their new website thing, and read the entry on necrons.
The Necrons are a race of sentient androids who long ago traded away their souls for the gift of immortality. For millennia beyond counting they have slumbered within their tomb worlds, sprawling crypt-fortresses that house billions-strong armies and ranks of deadly war machines. With every passing year more Necrons arise from this long stasis, and as they awaken so they begin the process of reforging their dynastic empires, which once ruled the galaxy with an iron fist.
To earn their immortality, the Necrontyr sacrificed their very flesh, replacing it with living metal. This renders even the lowliest Necron warrior incredibly resilient and difficult to kill. Yet such strength comes at a terrible cost. The majority of the Necron race are little more than near-mindless thralls, enslaved to the will of cruel Overlords – driven insane by millennia of dreaming stasis – who are still determined to see the Necron Empire rise once more.
Not a bit about them wanting to be fleshy again, or any of that forced tragic drama crap that was in 5th, and makes them out as mindless killing machines once more.
Cautiously optimistic.
I wouldn't get your hopes too far up.
they begin the process of reforging their dynastic empires, which once ruled the galaxy with an iron fist.
enslaved to the will of cruel Overlords – driven insane by millennia of dreaming stasis – who are still determined to see the Necron Empire rise once more.
Those sentences seem to carry a lot of weight for the 'forced drama' you dislike, and doesn't suggest that they've returned to mindless killing machine status.
krazynadechukr wrote: ...............Probably become more "spirit warfare" maybe have a spirit phase in nature too with fantastical astral projection swirly models of the ghostly realm and that kind of thing.......the negative imaged space map kinda hints at that whole universe reality is flipped vibe.......
The new video, and the community web ("Did you see that massive rent across the middle of the galaxy? That’s new…"), hint at what I thought several days ago.
Man... GW really is getting their money's worth out of the Space Marine video game soundtrack. I think most every video has been backed by those tracks (and complaints here as I thought they were particularly good).
Might as well get your money's worth! They've been drawing blood from that stone since the game came out.
DynamicCalories wrote: Of course they have, their prerogative is to sell things to the community. The difference between these people and people selling you a toothbrush is that they play the hobby too, and they don't want it to be a bad game to play for themselves.
So what was the excuse for the folks who came up with 6th and 7th edition who also played the game supposedly according to the white dwarf articles telling us how ZOMG! awesome! they were going to be in allowing Greater Demons to team up with SOB because that's what the community supposedly wanted? And that gave us abilities for free as long as you spent the money on the models because screw the actual in game mechanics? Except for the notable man at the very top, these are mostly the SAME people at GW who enthusiastically sold you the last POS toothbrush that had a bad chemical taste and lost its bristles within a couple of weeks. The onus is on THEM to PROVE they've changed (for the better unlike with 6th and especially Greedhammer $40,000 7th ed); just hinting and pinky swearing they have isn't going to cut it. They've lost the benefit of the doubt with many folks (including myself) and proof is in the actual release of the rules where we see them in their entirety instead of carefully selected vertical slices weeks to months ahead of time. Until they definitely prove otherwise, this is just Mailibu Grimdark Stacy with a new AOS hat.
Don't get me wrong... the changes under the current CEO have been positive (especially after Kirby's disastrous final years which aren't a high hurdle to jump) and I'm open to the possibility that they will get it less wrong this time around and possibly even somewhat right... but I'm not going to jumpt to that assumption based on pre-release marking which has traditionally for years and editions now been wrong. At this point, we're potentially at the fool me three times stage of the idiom (four if you count the horrible initial rollout of AOS). Until they actually release the rules and folks can look at the core mechanics in their entirety, folks like you will have to put up with alot of salt because GW deserves that and more.
In fairness I did expand on this point with caveats. Context is important. I will put up with plenty of salt, I am optimistic based on what they have reported to us so far, and how open they are being right of f the bat. Like I said, people are entirely within their rights to be conservative about buying new things until the rules are fully out, but I think they're doing their best to be transparent and open right now and I think responding with cynicism at this stage is ultimately as futile as being optimistic, its just more pleasant to be optimistic. If it turns out 8th is terrible, I will be sad because I would like an entry point into 40k, and 7th is not it.
Edit: I'll expand somewhat with an anecdote - I loved the idea of AoS when it first launched and it felt like a prime time to get into the hobby. I was very interested in it, but all I heard were bad things. A year later I took another look off the back of a few weeks of Total Warhammer. Things had clearly improved massively, but certain people were still wholly against it. I did some digging, found free sources for points, learned about the app and the free rules and the new armies and joined a few communities to take a look. It would have been as easy to join in, by cynical, make them "prove" it was good and all that, but a dash of optimism and a sense that GW had actually turned around means I am now happily back enjoying a hobby I had left for 10 years. That's just my take, I am not trying to say other people are wrong, but there's enough misery and cynicism needed to get through daily life, I'd prefer to keep my hobby time as happy as I can!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So, had a look a their new website thing, and read the entry on necrons.
The Necrons are a race of sentient androids who long ago traded away their souls for the gift of immortality. For millennia beyond counting they have slumbered within their tomb worlds, sprawling crypt-fortresses that house billions-strong armies and ranks of deadly war machines. With every passing year more Necrons arise from this long stasis, and as they awaken so they begin the process of reforging their dynastic empires, which once ruled the galaxy with an iron fist.
To earn their immortality, the Necrontyr sacrificed their very flesh, replacing it with living metal. This renders even the lowliest Necron warrior incredibly resilient and difficult to kill. Yet such strength comes at a terrible cost. The majority of the Necron race are little more than near-mindless thralls, enslaved to the will of cruel Overlords – driven insane by millennia of dreaming stasis – who are still determined to see the Necron Empire rise once more.
Not a bit about them wanting to be fleshy again, or any of that forced tragic drama crap that was in 5th, and makes them out as mindless killing machines once more.
Cautiously optimistic.
I wouldn't get your hopes too far up.
they begin the process of reforging their dynastic empires, which once ruled the galaxy with an iron fist.
enslaved to the will of cruel Overlords – driven insane by millennia of dreaming stasis – who are still determined to see the Necron Empire rise once more.
Those sentences seem to carry a lot of weight for the 'forced drama' you dislike, and doesn't suggest that they've returned to mindless killing machine status.
Because we already have a mindless killing machine. The nids. A mindless killing force doesn't need to be repeated.
Ah, excellent - I was hoping that they would not give Bolters any AP, simply because that would distort the baseline level of armor pen for weapons.
Those profiles seem good to me. It's interesting that Assault / Heavy / Rapid Fire still seem to be part of the core rules.
If I had to guess, it's going to be something like:
Assault--Move and fire with no penalties.
Rapid Fire--Standing still lets you double your shots.
Heavy--Move OR fire.
edit; and a Terminator that is hit, wounded, and damaged by one still has a 1 in 6 chance of surviving (only rolling 1 wound on d6, and Terminators are 2 wounds)
The wording that suggests a Lascannon is useless against Infantry Squads - does that mean that unlike AoS extra wounds are wasted? That would be good, and stop weapons like that being the go to.
In fairness I did expand on this point with caveats. Context is important. I will put up with plenty of salt, I am optimistic based on what they have reported to us so far, and how open they are being right of f the bat. Like I said, people are entirely within their rights to be conservative about buying new things until the rules are fully out, but I think they're doing their best to be transparent and open right now and I think responding with cynicism at this stage is ultimately as futile as being optimistic, its just more pleasant to be optimistic. If it turns out 8th is terrible, I will be sad because I would like an entry point into 40k, and 7th is not it.
Fair enough. I would argue personally that they're doing "better" but not their "best". IMO, their "best" would be to release the rules in advance and truly get community feedback and crowdsourced error finding before the release like many smaller companies do. That to me would be doing their best given the blunders of the last two major releases (the initial AOS rollout and the entirety of 7th edition 40k). YMMV. Talking select community influencers like Reecius over at Frontline and the Nova and Adepticon folks is better than not talking to them but in a large part they cherry picked the half glass full crowd by only talking to them. It's not that they won't give them negative feedback on certain things (the various tourney FAQs being an example) but those folks by virtue of continuing to organize such big events at a minimum at least halfhearted accepted the modern era of greedhammer in both AOS and 40k flavors. Releasing the rules that would be free anyways months ahead of time (and prior to printing) would give them feedback from a completely different portion of their potential fanbase (namely the folks like myself who have chose to let my 20,000pts+ of painted 40k sit unused rather than play/buy the current edition). Input from folks like Crablezworth's Cover Slaves youtube battle report channel who still play but actively constructively criticize instead of primarily promoting is useful as well.
That would be ideal (and how it worked in 2nd). Good for attacking large creatures and vehicles...borderline useless against single models (outside of Terminators). Also seems very intentional that -3 AP may be close to the maximum, which would still allow a Terminator a 5+ save (essentially mirroring a 5+ invulnerable).
Still sad to see the reduced 48" range on the lascannon.
warboss wrote: Fair enough. I would argue personally that they're doing "better" but not their "best". IMO, their "best" would be to release the rules in advance and truly get community feedback and crowdsourced error finding before the release like many smaller companies do. T
I'd bet good money that their 8th edition playtest group is larger than any open beta feedback from any smaller company.
In fairness I did expand on this point with caveats. Context is important. I will put up with plenty of salt, I am optimistic based on what they have reported to us so far, and how open they are being right of f the bat. Like I said, people are entirely within their rights to be conservative about buying new things until the rules are fully out, but I think they're doing their best to be transparent and open right now and I think responding with cynicism at this stage is ultimately as futile as being optimistic, its just more pleasant to be optimistic. If it turns out 8th is terrible, I will be sad because I would like an entry point into 40k, and 7th is not it.
Fair enough. I would argue personally that they're doing "better" but not their "best". IMO, their "best" would be to release the rules in advance and truly get community feedback and crowdsourced error finding before the release like many smaller companies do. That to me would be doing their best given the blunders of the last two major releases (the initial AOS rollout and the entirety of 7th edition 40k). YMMV. Talking select community influencers like Reecius over at Frontline and the Nova and Adepticon folks is better than not talking to them but in a large part they cherry picked the half glass full crowd by only talking to them. It's not that they won't give them negative feedback on certain things (the various tourney FAQs being an example) but those folks by virtue of continuing to organize such big events at a minimum at least halfhearted accepted the modern era of greedhammer in both AOS and 40k flavors. Releasing the rules that would be free anyways months ahead of time (and prior to printing) would give them feedback from a completely different portion of their potential fanbase (namely the folks like myself who have chose to let my 20,000pts+ of painted 40k sit unused rather than play/buy the current edition). Input from folks like Crablezworth's Cover Slaves youtube battle report channel who still play but actively constructively criticize instead of primarily promoting is useful as well.
That's cool. You seem entirely reasonable about this, and I think your points are all good. As I said in my updated post, I have my own anecdotal experience which gears me to a certain attitude, and you rightfully have yours. There is no point in everyone being as chipper as me, but they have won my trust back which I would never have expected 5 years ago.
With exception to the AP values, that's pretty much exactly what I was expecting to see. Lascannons being -3 rend is interesting - now marines get a save from them! Definitely alleviates my fears around terminators being too weak though.
warboss wrote: Fair enough. I would argue personally that they're doing "better" but not their "best". IMO, their "best" would be to release the rules in advance and truly get community feedback and crowdsourced error finding before the release like many smaller companies do. T
I'd bet good money that their 8th edition playtest group is larger than any open beta feedback from any smaller company.
Probably. I'd bet that their playtest group is more heavily weighted toward folks who would ultimately accept any version of the rules up to and including just another tweak of the current rules that they played despite its flaws than with an open beta. Selection bias is a thing.
Probably. I'd bet that their playtest group is more heavily weighted toward folks who would ultimately accept any version of the rules up to and including just another tweak of the current rules that they played despite its flaws than with an open beta. Selection bias is a thing.
And what makes you think some of these other negative people would do a better job? Do you think they have a better grasp at what makes a good rule? I think not.
Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.
It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.
It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).
Well basically the Dreadnought now has a 5+ save and can't be one shoted immediately which is good.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.
It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).
I think that it's important to wait for the setup for Heavy, Assault, etc.
If Heavy weapons can only fire OR move, then it becomes a case of prioritizing things--especially if we retain the way AoS mandates unit cohesion.
When they said "hope" I was expecting a portal to open and TS/Tzeenchian daemon army to doombolt Nurgrlites to ash.
Also the argument of "because Galaxy belongs to humans" sounds so empty when fighting other humans.
Lovely, pretty much what I hoped for. The big takeaways:
- Bolters are not magical anti-vehicle or terminator weapons that can reduce the save of a terminator to 3+ or dreadnought to 4+ respectively. Together with Lasguns (which is now basically guaranteed to still be S3) that means you will still need hundreds of shots to take out e.g. a Dreadnought by itself, let alone heavier vehicles.
- Servo Armor units now actually still have a 6+ armor save against lascannons. That's pretty cool.
- Flamers are still good against massed infantry and can now do SERIOUS damage to single models as well. http://files.sharenator.com/kill_it_with_fire-s670x394-87720.jpg] As it should be. So now a flamer specialized unit is quite potent and deadly all around rather than being limited to one niche and being useless against everything else. Even more so for Heavy Flamers and Immolators that are likely going to be S5 or even S6. We can finally efficiently BBQ the big bugs, WOHOOOOO. Also if they don't screw up the points the Pyrovore is now likely to be actually worthwhile
- Expensive and highly specialized AT weapons like Lascannons are still great at taking out vehicles and also monstrous creatures, e.g. potentially a Dreadnought in two hits, while still getting rid of the awful, frustrating and unfun one-shot kills that plagued vehicles in the past.
Probably. I'd bet that their playtest group is more heavily weighted toward folks who would ultimately accept any version of the rules up to and including just another tweak of the current rules that they played despite its flaws than with an open beta. Selection bias is a thing.
And what makes you think some of these other negative people would do a better job? Do you think they have a better grasp at what makes a good rule? I think not.
So you think that limiting the feedback pool to only those who have enthusiastically supported the game this edition and excluding those who haven't gives them a wider range of feedback and catches more potential issues prior to release? In my experience, white knights and sycophantic employees rarely give good constructive feedback when the boss doesn't want to hear it... see 7th edition for example. Expanding the pool to those who accepted the current substandard and tried to improve on it like community organizers is better but hardly ideal.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Does this math account for things like extra hullpoints sustained from repeated results and such? And is it 1/18 including the roll to-hit?
I never lost dreadnoughts to lascannons anyways - I'd like to see the math for autocannons and other s7 spam.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I'm wondering, do Terminators no longer have a 5++? Cause with these new rules to weapons and their extra wounds they might not need them.
They've said that units will have their special rules present on their datasheets.
We have not seen the Invulnerable Save as part of the Saves profile in AoS or 40k. Likely there's going to be something noting that they get to reroll failed armor saves or they can roll a D6 after suffering a Wound and on a 5+ they ignore the Wound or whatever.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I'm wondering, do Terminators no longer have a 5++? Cause with these new rules to weapons and their extra wounds they might not need them.
They would still need them against the heavier calibre weapons that we know are out there.
Now if rending and more importantly pseudo rending is also gone - makes life interesting.
Looking forward to seeing what the rend numbers are for Close Combat weapons.
I'm wondering if a large difference in Strength or Toughness will affect the AP.
For instance a Flamer vs a Dreadnought (S vs Tx2) would grant a +1 or +2 AP, improving the Dread's armour save.
Same thing with the Lascannon vs a Space Marine ensuring the Space Marine doesn't get a save.
v0iddrgn wrote: Does the to Wound roll happen before or after the Damage number is rolled? i.e. do you roll to wound for each point of Damage or only once?
It would be:
Roll to hit->roll to wound->roll save->roll damage.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Does this math account for things like extra hullpoints sustained from repeated results and such? And is it 1/18 including the roll to-hit?
I never lost dreadnoughts to lascannons anyways - I'd like to see the math for autocannons and other s7 spam.
I think making lascannons more effective against vehicles is a good thing, as said the main issue in 7th was medium strength high rof weapons glancing vehicles to death rather than dedicated anti vehicle weapons penetrating and killing them. Tho that was annoying too.
v0iddrgn wrote: Does the to Wound roll happen before or after the Damage number is rolled? i.e. do you roll to wound for each point of Damage or only once?
My money is on roll to wound => roll to save => roll damage.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Does this math account for things like extra hullpoints sustained from repeated results and such? And is it 1/18 including the roll to-hit?
I never lost dreadnoughts to lascannons anyways - I'd like to see the math for autocannons and other s7 spam.
I think making lascannons more effective against vehicles is a good thing, as said the main issue in 7th was medium strength high rof weapons glancing vehicles to death rather than dedicated anti vehicle weapons penetrating and killing them. Tho that was annoying too.
I agree, that's what I'm saying - I like that lascannons can do lots of anti-vehicle damage, but I'd like to see scatter lasers and the like knocked down a peg this edition as far as killing armor!
It's probably just like the Multiple Wounds effect from fantasy (never played AoS, might be there too). The damage would be rolled after the roll to wound and saving throw.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
I'm actually ok with that as long as the rest of the mechanics are balanced to reflect that. The bigger issue IMO with the current ruleset in that scenario is that dreadnoughts were traditionally overpriced when compared with monstrous creature they faced that fulfilled the same roles generally. The dreads cost as much or nearly as much and could be one shotted at worst and at even crippled on average even with glancing hits (in 3rd-6th) whereas a monstrous creature at 1 out of 6 wounds was oblivious to the missing 84% of its health.
As long as dreadnoughts are appropriately priced within this edition in relation to their current survivability (instead of lazily porting over 5th-7th edition points values) then I'm alright with it for me most part. I support the move to standardize the damage system better to get rid of the glaring disparities inherent in the past 17 years of warhammer. I would have preferred though if they kept some "facing" effects though in the game (like a bonus to hit or wound or penalty to save for flanking and rear shots).
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Does this math account for things like extra hullpoints sustained from repeated results and such? And is it 1/18 including the roll to-hit?
I never lost dreadnoughts to lascannons anyways - I'd like to see the math for autocannons and other s7 spam.
I think making lascannons more effective against vehicles is a good thing, as said the main issue in 7th was medium strength high rof weapons glancing vehicles to death rather than dedicated anti vehicle weapons penetrating and killing them. Tho that was annoying too.
I agree, that's what I'm saying - I like that lascannons can do lots of anti-vehicle damage, but I'd like to see scatter lasers and the like knocked down a peg this edition as far as killing armor!
What's there current AP - I forget? If its not more than AP4 then its no Rend by the looks of it - hopefully pseudo rending has gone too
Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.
and we still don't know what exactly was tested and if the suggestions of the testers were considered in the final version
This level of cynicism is awe inspiring. (how is there not a salt "orkmoticon?!)
I am loving those weapon profiles! Everything is how it should be. And not to brag, but it's not too far off my own ideas I put up in the proposed rules section/smug face.
So the humble lasgun is likely to be range 24" rapid fire 1 strength 3 AP - damage 1. Warmly familiar.
changemod wrote: In groups it works better, a squad of flamers of Tzeentch would do something like 6d6 hits which'd average out to a lot of damage.
Unless they make multi-hit weapons to roll once for entire squad, like they do now for variable-shot weapons.
They can even argue that ti's "for the sake of making the game quicker"
I hate to rain on this parade, but those weapon profiles are bizarre to say the least.
They're not even consistent with their own fluff.
Bolters are supposed to fire exploding bolts, but not even a hint of armour piercing? Thus invalidating years of fluff!
So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...
And yeah, the flamer rules have remained static over the years i.e hitting automatically with a template or this new rule, but where's the element of chance? The 1 in 100 instance when the flamer might explode?
And the lascannon is equally bizarre. -3 armour save suggests a slim chance of actually surviving something that is capable of punching through ceramide armour? Terminators getting an invulnerable save? I can buy that, but again, it contradicts their own fluff of a high energy bolt blasting through things.
In reality, anti-tank weapons are capable of destroying tanks with one hit. Is that still possible in this new edition? I don't know...
DarkBlack wrote: This level of cynicism is awe inspiring. (how is there not a salt "orkmoticon?!)
And yet it pales in comparison to the precipitating greed at GW and the zeal with which some in the community defended it that got us to this point. Cause and effect, Dark. GW has to prove they've done better to folks who refused to drink the Kool Aid anymore. They're admittedly trying but it's not a quick process for those of who didn't queue up with cup in hand months ago.
I do agree though there should absolutely be a salt orkmoticon.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hate to rain on this parade, but those weapon profiles are bizarre to say the least.
They're not even consistent with their own fluff.
Bolters are supposed to fire exploding bolts, but not even a hint of armour piercing? Thus invalidating years of fluff!
So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...
And yeah, the flamer rules have remained static over the years i.e hitting automatically with a template or this new rule, but where's the element of chance? The 1 in 100 instance when the flamer might explode?
And the lascannon is equally bizarre. -3 armour save suggests a slim chance of actually surviving something that is capable of punching through ceramide armour? Terminators getting an invulnerable save? I can buy that, but again, it contradicts their own fluff of a high energy bolt blasting through things.
In reality, anti-tank weapons are capable of destroying tanks with one hit. Is that still possible in this new edition? I don't know...
Very strange decisions made by GW here.
Exploding =\= armor piercing
"Realistically" flakk armor would be great against something that explodes.
DarkBlack wrote: This level of cynicism is awe inspiring. (how is there not a salt "orkmoticon?!)
And yet it pales in comparison to the precipitating greed at GW and the zeal with which some in the community defended it that got us to this point. Cause and effect, Dark. GW has to prove they've done better to folks who refused to drink the Kool Aid anymore. They're admittedly trying but it's not a quick process for those of who didn't queue up with cup in hand months ago.
I do agree though there should absolutely be a salt orkmoticon.
A few years ago? Sure. Otherwise you just haven't been paying attention and giving credit where credit it due.
In reality, anti-tank weapons are capable of destroying tanks with one hit. Is that still possible in this new edition? I don't know...
It's not, and that's the point. The chance of being on-shot instantly is what kept vehicles undepowered compared to monsters for the last two editions.
Well basically the Dreadnought now has a 5+ save and can't be one shoted immediately which is good.
6+ save.
Likely to be 5+ or 4+ against weaker and more common AT weapons such as Krak Missiles or Autocannons though (and probably umodified 3+ against e.g. heavy bolters or multilasers), which is still a serious buff even before taking the need to wound against T7 first into account. Also spells good news for Bjorn who is likely to get his current 5+ inv. save improved with something else.
For those people confused about the wounds and D6 "damage" for lascannons and fearing they might be a great squadwipe weapon against MEQ, I'm pretty sure it will work like this in game:
Hit? YES -> Successful wounding roll based on number of hits (e.g. 1 hit = 1 potential affected model against an infantry squad, which is the case for the Heavy 1 Lascannon) -> the model that has the successful lascannon wound makes it's armour save -> If the save fails D6 'life points' (the wounds a model has in its statline) are lost as 'damage' for that model.
So no D6 wounds for the entire squad. Instead if the lascannon shot against a Terminator squad hits, wounds and the affected Termi fails his 5+ armour save, it has a 1 in 5 chance to survive, otherwise it dies as both 'life points, no other models are affected.
Personally, I favor heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.
Personally, I favour heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.
Cos he really really needed to die - come one we have all had days like that.....
macluvin wrote: So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.
I think to summarise, we had;
AoS Sucks
AoS is awesome
New 40k will be like AoS New 40k won't be like AoS New 40k has been playtested extensively
New 40k hasn't been playtested extensively
Land Raiders can be killed by Lasguns
Land Raiders shouldn't be killed by Lasguns
Lots of crying
My precious painted models shouldn't die
I like killing people's precious painted models
Giant Sace Marines are awesome and real
Giant Space Marine pics are fake
AoS still sucks
AoS is still awesome
Did I miss anything?
I'm glad the OP was updated with the video info. Thanks for whoever did that.
How long till GW release 40k? I'm tiring of the panto already. :-(
Yeah, the Ubiquitous "No one's forcing you to buy 8th edition" comment.
As if someone will stick to 7th while the majority of the people switches to 8th.
Personally, I favor heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.
There is one, it over-penetrates the guardsmen. True there is the chance that it can kill more guardsmen if they are conveniently placed in a line, but what kind of idiot does that in warfare?
In reality, anti-tank weapons are capable of destroying tanks with one hit. Is that still possible in this new edition? I don't know...
It's not, and that's the point. The chance of being on-shot instantly is what kept vehicles undepowered compared to monsters for the last two editions.
That's the risk tanks take on the battlefield and why they usually have infantry with them.
If tanks are not effective in 40k, then the blame for that should be placed at the door of the game designers.
Well basically the Dreadnought now has a 5+ save and can't be one shoted immediately which is good.
well, it'd be a 6+ against a Lascannon with a 3+ base save and a -3 ASM. The one shotting thing is good, but it'll be a lot easier to drop with a single salvo from multiple weapons like a Lascannon pred or Devastators.
I think that it's important to wait for the setup for Heavy, Assault, etc.
If Heavy weapons can only fire OR move, then it becomes a case of prioritizing things--especially if we retain the way AoS mandates unit cohesion.
Yeah, there's a lot we still need to see the details for, but from what we've seen so far, at least from the framework of existing rules, there's potential for some concern.
Does this math account for things like extra hullpoints sustained from repeated results and such?
no, but those are relatively more minor, really only occurring from repeated immobilizations with more than 1 remaining hull point anyway, so, while not irrelevant, it wont change the math in any meaningful way.
And is it 1/18 including the roll to-hit?
Aye.
I never lost dreadnoughts to lascannons anyways - I'd like to see the math for autocannons and other s7 spam.
unfortunately without seeing the new ASM and Dmg values, we cant really do a comparison yet (unless they showed it somewhere I missed), but in 7E a Dread will require an average of 13.5 (round to 14) BS4 shots to kill.
Probably. I'd bet that their playtest group is more heavily weighted toward folks who would ultimately accept any version of the rules up to and including just another tweak of the current rules that they played despite its flaws than with an open beta. Selection bias is a thing.
And what makes you think some of these other negative people would do a better job? Do you think they have a better grasp at what makes a good rule? I think not.
because those people have invested a ton of time and money into the game. Whether its bad or not, they will keep running the cons as long as people show up.
Tournament players are VERY critical of the rules; in fact they're the ones that go over them with a fine toothed comb looking for the things that arent working as intended or are mildly broke
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.
It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).
I think I'd be ok with that actually. Not being able to be one shot, but still getting armor saves, even if more fragile. Seems good to me. I wonder how Leviathans will work now.
So, it's an All or Nothing approach to wounding with multi-Damage weapons. I'm just running through the scenario's in my head where the SM Captain gets hit by a couple of Lascannon's and he saves against one that rolled up 6 points of damage and suffers the wounds against the one that rolled up 2 points of damage. It begs the question how Eternal Warrior could play into that scenario... maybe the Capt with EW will get to save each point of damage separately???
changemod wrote: I dislike the randomness of these weapons, having a single flamer or a single lascannon now means having very unpredictable effect.
In groups it works better, a squad of flamers of Tzeentch would do something like 6d6 hits which'd average out to a lot of damage.
But now everything gets a save against it. Tit for tat and we still need points.
My main point is that if you say, have a tactical squad with a flamer and a lascannon, then the effectiveness is going to be highly randomised. You can park your rhino, disembark within one inch of a Hormogaunt swarm and score... 1 flamer hit. You can fire a lascannon at a dreadnought and either chip off a wound or cripple it, not depending on getting a pen first then rolling vehicle damage, but straight away.
Basic weaponry really should perform fairly consistently.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hate to rain on this parade, but those weapon profiles are bizarre to say the least.
They're not even consistent with their own fluff.
Bolters are supposed to fire exploding bolts, but not even a hint of armour piercing? Thus invalidating years of fluff!
So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...
And yeah, the flamer rules have remained static over the years i.e hitting automatically with a template or this new rule, but where's the element of chance? The 1 in 100 instance when the flamer might explode?
And the lascannon is equally bizarre. -3 armour save suggests a slim chance of actually surviving something that is capable of punching through ceramide armour? Terminators getting an invulnerable save? I can buy that, but again, it contradicts their own fluff of a high energy bolt blasting through things.
In reality, anti-tank weapons are capable of destroying tanks with one hit. Is that still possible in this new edition? I don't know...
Very strange decisions made by GW here.
Exploding =\= armor piercing
"Realistically" flakk armor would be great against something that explodes.
Heh just thought that too, flakk armor was designed to protect against shrapnel though really does bolts even cause shrapnel? i think ultimately it doesn't matter for the game. that and adding in the supposed cover save mechanics, things are going to get to live longer to do fun stuff like CC
macluvin wrote: So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.
I think to summarise, we had;
AoS Sucks
AoS is awesome
New 40k will be like AoS New 40k won't be like AoS New 40k has been playtested extensively
New 40k hasn't been playtested extensively
Land Raiders can be killed by Lasguns
Land Raiders shouldn't be killed by Lasguns
Lots of crying
My precious painted models shouldn't die
I like killing people's precious painted models
Giant Sace Marines are awesome and real
Giant Space Marine pics are fake
AoS still sucks
AoS is still awesome
Did I miss anything?
I'm glad the OP was updated with the video info. Thanks for whoever did that.
How long till GW release 40k? I'm tiring of the panto already. :-(
You missed people pointing out that GW will/may ignore the playtesting or the contrary. As an aside, I'll say you're not the only one by a long shot.
Well do us all a favour and stop reading it, I promise if anyone is critical of AoS I will just imagine you popping up to say they have never played it will save you a lot of time.
.
Aren't you the charming fella, I guess I'll leave it at that, though I'd like you did the favour since there's a few more individuals filling your role and better.
Personally, I favor heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.
There is one, it over-penetrates the guardsmen. True there is the chance that it can kill more guardsmen if they are conveniently placed in a line, but what kind of idiot does that in warfare?
Just shoot the ground next to the guardsmen hyper velocity is no joke.
So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...
Assuming guardsmen still have a 5+ save... #New40k is new
The imperium might be a lot of things, but guardsman are not going to go into combat naked! They will have basic armour of some kind.
For as long as I've been in the hobby, it's been set in stone that bolters and exploding bolts were good at taking out lightly armoured chaos cultists, guardsmen, and Ork flak armour etc etc
Bolters struggled slightly against Orks due to their toughness of 4, but that was never an issue, as that was the Ork background and physiology.
All looking good for the new edition. Stats are looking excellent. Wyches actually have a save now, same as Orks. Cover hopefully will improve that save as well.
The key on the damage stat for larger weapons is whether it affects a model or unit. Hopefully, no grey areas on the explanations.
Elbows wrote: That would be ideal (and how it worked in 2nd). Good for attacking large creatures and vehicles...borderline useless against single models (outside of Terminators). Also seems very intentional that -3 AP may be close to the maximum, which would still allow a Terminator a 5+ save (essentially mirroring a 5+ invulnerable).
Still sad to see the reduced 48" range on the lascannon.
I may be remembering wrong, with my having spent almost a year without playing, but haven't they been always range 48''?
v0iddrgn wrote: So, it's an All or Nothing approach to wounding with multi-Damage weapons. I'm just running through the scenario's in my head where the SM Captain gets hit by a couple of Lascannon's and he saves against one that rolled up 6 points of damage and suffers the wounds against the one that rolled up 2 points of damage. It begs the question how Eternal Warrior could play into that scenario... maybe the Capt with EW will get to save each point of damage separately???
Or automatically reduce multiwounds to just one. Or have a staggered hierarchy of Eternal Warrior like EW1 that reduces it to 1 wound EW2 reducing it to 2 wounds if more, etc. Or just get rid of EW completely with the new ruleset. The options are completely open. I don't know though if there is even an AOS equivalent to EW to compare it to (nor do we have any guarantees that it would port over if there is one).
I didn't see anything about Rapid Fire not allowing Charges unless Relentless, so it technically could be a buff for Marines as they're finally able to make use of those melee stats.
changemod wrote: I dislike the randomness of these weapons, having a single flamer or a single lascannon now means having very unpredictable effect.
In groups it works better, a squad of flamers of Tzeentch would do something like 6d6 hits which'd average out to a lot of damage.
But now everything gets a save against it. Tit for tat and we still need points.
My main point is that if you say, have a tactical squad with a flamer and a lascannon, then the effectiveness is going to be highly randomised. You can park your rhino, disembark within one inch of a Hormogaunt swarm and score... 1 flamer hit. You can fire a lascannon at a dreadnought and either chip off a wound or cripple it, not depending on getting a pen first then rolling vehicle damage, but straight away.
Basic weaponry really should perform fairly consistently.
We can always worry about the edge cases, but we should be thinking in terms of averages. Keep in mind as well that the dreadnoughts effectiveness will decrease with wounds. A couple good shots with lascannons may make it worth focusing on something else and "letting the lasguns finish it off".
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.
It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).
I think I'd be ok with that actually. Not being able to be one shot, but still getting armor saves, even if more fragile. Seems good to me. I wonder how Leviathans will work now.
well, I think there is an overfocus on the one shot. A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now, other changes may balance that out, but if costs and weapons access remains roughly the same, then these units are going to be even worse off potentially.
BrotherGecko wrote: Personally, I favor heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.
No, this helps to differentiate weapons. Some are better against single targets while others are better against units.
So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...
Assuming guardsmen still have a 5+ save... #New40k is new
The imperium might be a lot of things, but guardsman are not going to go into combat naked! They will have basic armour of some kind.
For as long as I've been in the hobby, it's been set in stone that bolters and exploding bolts were good at taking out lightly armoured chaos cultists, guardsmen, and Ork flak armour etc etc
Bolters struggled slightly against Orks due to their toughness of 4, but that was never an issue, as that was the Ork background and physiology.
The system just isn't granular enough to really justify giving them AP -1. If a Lascannon is -3, that leaves Missile Launcher equivalents at -2 and Heavy Bolters/Autocannons at -1. If Bolters were -1, then that leaves everything stronger than a strong small arms weapon and weaker than a directed energy blast at -2.
Personally, I favor heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.
There is one, it over-penetrates the guardsmen. True there is the chance that it can kill more guardsmen if they are conveniently placed in a line, but what kind of idiot does that in warfare?
Also why would one ever take weapons specialized for killing heavy infantry like plasma cannons when a lascannon would be indefinitely better at taking out vehicles and could still inflict D6 wounds on MEQ/TEQ without having whatever handicap they are going to replace plasma meltdowns with?
Contradicts with the intended balance of Lascannons being great against singular targets but inefficient against infantry squads (besides TEQ) as stated in the developer info.
Vaktathi wrote: well, I think there is an overfocus on the one shot. A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now, other changes may balance that out, but if costs and weapons access remains roughly the same, then these units are going to be even worse off potentially.
I think we need a refocus here. Anti-tank weapons should be good at hurting big things. It's the middle range weapons that should get nerfed against a dreadnought.
v0iddrgn wrote: So, it's an All or Nothing approach to wounding with multi-Damage weapons. I'm just running through the scenario's in my head where the SM Captain gets hit by a couple of Lascannon's and he saves against one that rolled up 6 points of damage and suffers the wounds against the one that rolled up 2 points of damage. It begs the question how Eternal Warrior could play into that scenario... maybe the Capt with EW will get to save each point of damage separately???
Or maybe EW halves damage from multi-wound effects. Said SM Captain fails his (probably 5+ Sv vs. lascannon), lascannon rolls a 6 for damage. EW lets you halve that for only 3 wounds inflicted.
Also why would one ever take weapons specialized for killing heavy infantry like plasma cannons when a lascannon would be indefinitely better at taking out vehicles and could still inflict D6 wounds on MEQ/TEQ without having whatever handicap they are going to replace plasma meltdowns with?
Because from what the post says it seems like wounds do not spill over. D6 damage will not kill D6 space marines. It will kill one.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I didn't see anything about Rapid Fire not allowing Charges unless Relentless, so it technically could be a buff for Marines as they're finally able to make use of those melee stats.
God I hope so. But then why do bolt pistols exist?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I didn't see anything about Rapid Fire not allowing Charges unless Relentless, so it technically could be a buff for Marines as they're finally able to make use of those melee stats.
God I hope so. But then why do bolt pistols exist?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I didn't see anything about Rapid Fire not allowing Charges unless Relentless, so it technically could be a buff for Marines as they're finally able to make use of those melee stats.
God I hope so. But then why do bolt pistols exist?
So you can fire two of them or hold a chainsword in the other hand.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I didn't see anything about Rapid Fire not allowing Charges unless Relentless, so it technically could be a buff for Marines as they're finally able to make use of those melee stats.
God I hope so. But then why do bolt pistols exist?
Because they can't go back in time and remove them just for this edition's ruleset...?
Vaktathi wrote: A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.
Vaktathi wrote: well, I think there is an overfocus on the one shot. A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now, other changes may balance that out, but if costs and weapons access remains roughly the same, then these units are going to be even worse off potentially.
I think we need a refocus here. Anti-tank weapons should be good at hurting big things. It's the middle range weapons that should get nerfed against a dreadnought.
On some level thats fine, but they're becoming vulnerable to a much wider array of small/medium weapons at the same time.
Vaktathi wrote: A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.
Well, that's average. A slight push on the bell curve could do it. The dreadnought will also be weakened. *And that is ok.*
Vaktathi wrote: A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.
That doesn't look much deadlier than 4 Lascannons shooting now.
Also why would one ever take weapons specialized for killing heavy infantry like plasma cannons when a lascannon would be indefinitely better at taking out vehicles and could still inflict D6 wounds on MEQ/TEQ without having whatever handicap they are going to replace plasma meltdowns with?
Because from what the post says it seems like wounds do not spill over. D6 damage will not kill D6 space marines. It will kill one.
Yeah, that seems to be how it will work. A flamer, with D6 hits, can hit multiple models. A lascannon can only hit one model (but can do multiple wounds on that model).
Vaktathi wrote: A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.
even better with cover
sounds fantastic. i can actually get to walk my dread up for more than 1 turn.
Speaking to how damage works: Most of the changes were made to make the game faster. Individual damage allocation slows the game down and allows shenanigans. I think it will work like AOS, if a Lascannon hits a squad of troops, that squad will take d6 wounds, not one guy in the squad takes d6 wounds.
Vaktathi wrote: A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.
I don't think you would roll the D6 till you got past the armour save so its:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6 hits
Wounding on 2+ nets ?
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so
Any hits that are not saved become D6 Damage
Vaktathi wrote: well, I think there is an overfocus on the one shot. A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now, other changes may balance that out, but if costs and weapons access remains roughly the same, then these units are going to be even worse off potentially.
I think we need a refocus here. Anti-tank weapons should be good at hurting big things. It's the middle range weapons that should get nerfed against a dreadnought.
On some level thats fine, but they're becoming vulnerable to a much wider array of small/medium weapons at the same time.
I mean, I can kind of understand this concern but...I'm not concerned about small numbers of boltguns or the like downing a Leman Russ.
Personally, I favor heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.
If that was the case, heavy weapons would be better at killing everything, not just tanks. Lascannons would be the end-all choice. I think people should really try to think of this stuff more in game terms, rather than that what would "make sense" for the fluff of the particular weapon or unit.
Vaktathi wrote: On some level thats fine, but they're becoming vulnerable to a much wider array of small/medium weapons at the same time.
Not really they aren't, the amount of shots needed from small arms is massive. And medium weapons already slaughtered vehicles, now they would be far less effective.
In reality, anti-tank weapons are capable of destroying tanks with one hit. Is that still possible in this new edition? I don't know...
It's not, and that's the point. The chance of being on-shot instantly is what kept vehicles undepowered compared to monsters for the last two editions.
That's the risk tanks take on the battlefield and why they usually have infantry with them.
If tanks are not effective in 40k, then the blame for that should be placed at the door of the game designers.
You design an effective vehicle that blows up 33% of the time
Smellingsalts wrote: Speaking to how damage works: Most of the changes were made to make the game faster. Individual damage allocation slows the game down and allows shenanigans. I think it will work like AOS, if a Lascannon hits a squad of troops, that squad will take d6 wounds, not one guy in the squad takes d6 wounds.
I just can't see a ruleset where the Lascannon becomes a powerful infantry clearer. I think it'll be the other way.
Vaktathi wrote: A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.
I don't think you would roll the D6 till you got past the armour save so its:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6 hits
Wounding on 2+ nets ?
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so
Any hits that are not saved become D6 Damage
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hate to rain on this parade, but those weapon profiles are bizarre to say the least.
They're not even consistent with their own fluff.
Bolters are supposed to fire exploding bolts, but not even a hint of armour piercing? Thus invalidating years of fluff!
So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...
Experience gained from an entire edition of the game (2nd) showed that handing out save mods to basic infantry weapons is a mistake. So there's that.
My guess was that the save mods for 8th would **very roughly** follow this pattern:
Old AP5/6: no mod
I
Old AP4: -1
Old AP3: -2
Old AP2/1: -3
So far it looks like we're on target and on a good path.
I may be wrong on this, but in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th edition, bolters having AP5 was never a problem anywhere, for anyone. My memory is hazy, but in my few years of reading various topics on dakka, I don't think anybody ever complained about bolters slowing down the game or being too powerful or whatever.
"Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single would per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."
The last line makes me think damage will be done to a single model, perhaps.
As for random hits for the flamer, I like the auto hit but I'd rather it were slightly less random perhaps, maybe d3+3 or so.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.
It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).
I think I'd be ok with that actually. Not being able to be one shot, but still getting armor saves, even if more fragile. Seems good to me. I wonder how Leviathans will work now.
well, I think there is an overfocus on the one shot. A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now, other changes may balance that out, but if costs and weapons access remains roughly the same, then these units are going to be even worse off potentially.
Well yeah. If you have an anti tank squad shooting anti tank weapons, you can fully expect something to die
Personally, I favor heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.
If that was the case, heavy weapons would be better at killing everything, not just tanks. Lascannons would be the end-all choice. I think people should really try to think of this stuff more in game terms, rather than that what would "make sense" for the fluff of the particular weapon or unit.
I think you should take 2 weeks out and play some sigmar. Yes, Lascannons will be able to kill D3 models per turn, no that does not make it the end all choice. There are weapons in Sigmar that are actually far deadlier than the lascannon as posted that don't even come close to unbalancing the game, or eliminating baseline weapons,
See the thing is, you think that the lascannon will be super freaking amazing right up until a bank of 4 kills 2 orc boyz.
I think the problem is that 40k players are so used to dicerolls not mattering due to the number of buffs and rerolls that they forget what the game can be like when you can actually fail.
MrDwhitey wrote: "Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single would per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."
The last line makes me think damage will be done to a single model, perhaps.
As for random hits for the flamer, I like the auto hit but I'd rather it were slightly less random perhaps, maybe d3+3 or so.
i agree. kinda silly to see a HOARD of something charging up a hill but only managing to torch 1 rando.
gorgon wrote: My guess was that the save mods for 8th would **very roughly** follow this pattern:
Old AP5/6: no mod
Old AP4: -1
Old AP3: -2
Old AP2/1: -3
That's what I expect, although I think AP 1 is likely to get -4 and rending (and similar effects) might add another -1 to that.
What I'm wondering about is whether there is such a thing as a positive AP and, if so, what gets it? Would be a good way to reduce the impact of mass lasgun fire on big, tough targets now that it seems a roll of 6 always wounds.
Very nervous about what this means for orks. It seems tough targets are less vulnerable to medium-power weapons (e.g. the dreadnought takes a lot of S 7 AP -2 D 1 hits to kill, compared to how it fared against the old autocannon) but easier to kill with really powerful ones (lascannon seems like a pretty reliable dread killer). Since we have traditionally had some of the former and none of the latter, this could be bad.
If hotshot lasguns get -2 to saves, they might be pretty decent against heavy armour...
EDIT: one thing that jumps out: there don't seem to be any keywords on the weapon profiles. I expected flamers to say 'thermal' or something.
MrDwhitey wrote: "Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single would per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."
The last line makes me think damage will be done to a single model, perhaps.
Personally, I favor heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.
If that was the case, heavy weapons would be better at killing everything, not just tanks. Lascannons would be the end-all choice. I think people should really try to think of this stuff more in game terms, rather than that what would "make sense" for the fluff of the particular weapon or unit.
Not necessarily.
Lascannons are a single shot that's relatively high power, but expends its energy quickly upon impacting the target.
It's massive damage, small impact. Think of it like an anti-tank round versus a high explosive round.
A railrifle round like the ones fired by Pathfinders would be similar to it.
I could see Heavy Railrifles getting a rule similar to the Death Jester's, where if they kill something organic then you have to worry about bone shards and the like hitting a small amount of the unit involved.
Railguns on the Hammerheads might get a step up from that, where it affects organics and vehicles.
MrDwhitey wrote: "Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single would per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."
The last line makes me think damage will be done to a single model, perhaps.
Loving that change. Makes weapons do what they should! Flamer does D6 attacks each doing 1 wound to a model, lascannon does D6 wounds to one model. PERFECT.
Stops an anti-tank gun mowing down troops, or a flamer over-cooking tough models. Bloody simple and lovely.
MrDwhitey wrote: "Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single would per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."
The last line makes me think damage will be done to a single model, perhaps.
So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...
Assuming guardsmen still have a 5+ save... #New40k is new
The imperium might be a lot of things, but guardsman are not going to go into combat naked! They will have basic armour of some kind.
For as long as I've been in the hobby, it's been set in stone that bolters and exploding bolts were good at taking out lightly armoured chaos cultists, guardsmen, and Ork flak armour etc etc
Bolters struggled slightly against Orks due to their toughness of 4, but that was never an issue, as that was the Ork background and physiology.
The system just isn't granular enough to really justify giving them AP -1. If a Lascannon is -3, that leaves Missile Launcher equivalents at -2 and Heavy Bolters/Autocannons at -1. If Bolters were -1, then that leaves everything stronger than a strong small arms weapon and weaker than a directed energy blast at -2.
I'm of the firm belief that the only save against a lascannon should be invulnerable or tank armour deflecting the shot. It's supposed to be a highly concentrated and powerful beam for dakka's sake!
-3 armour just makes a nonsense of years of their own fluff.
JohnnyHell wrote: Loving that change. Makes weapons do what they should! Flamer does D6 attacks each doing 1 wound to a model, lascannon does D6 wounds to one model. PERFECT.
Stops an anti-tank gun mowing down troops, or a flamer over-cooking tough models. Bloody simple and lovely.
Agreed.
Realistically a rail gun would chew through an entire line of perfectly lined up guardsmen but at some point you have to stand back and think about the game as a whole.
MrDwhitey wrote: "Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single would per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."
The last line makes me think damage will be done to a single model, perhaps.
Well the second sentence says precisely that.
Which would be stupid.
Nope.
trust me, having experinced a system where weapon stats work like this, changing it so that it only hits one model is going to create problems. Especially for matched play. Armies that are inherently either elite or blobby, like orcs or grey knights are going to be a b***h to plan for.
So, one curiosity about the flamer mechanic (perhaps someone from AoS can elaborate).
8" range which is the same as the template and D6 hits which is okay. People will complain about rolling 1's, etc. when face to face with a swarm. However to offset that...if you're within 8" of a single model from a swarm, and roll 6 hits. Will the rest of the unit (technically out of range) take those hits? If so, the flamer just balanced itself out tremendously by spiking its own range through additional hits.
OR...(in AoS at least) do all of the stuck models need to be within the actual 8" range?
PS: I'm also happy to see templates go solely because we can re-introduce proper hand flamers and large flamers (which used to shoot about 4" and like 12" respectively). I hated when they dropped to three templates and shoe-horned every weapon int the game into those three.
I think the Lascannon will clear out infantry really well. Logically, that would be the weapon to give everyone but of coarse there will be restrictions on how many your squad can take. I think people are getting caught up in thinking this game reflects reality. I don't think the designers valued that as much as speed of play and game flow. Guess we will have to wait and see.
I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.
But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.
JohnnyHell wrote: Loving that change. Makes weapons do what they should! Flamer does D6 attacks each doing 1 wound to a model, lascannon does D6 wounds to one model. PERFECT.
Stops an anti-tank gun mowing down troops, or a flamer over-cooking tough models. Bloody simple and lovely.
Agreed.
Realistically a rail gun would chew through an entire line of perfectly lined up guardsmen but at some point you have to stand back and think about the game as a whole.
To be fair, we usually see special rules associated with specific weapons--who knows what we're not seeing at this juncture?
Maybe that Lascannon can hit multiple targets at once--but that still wouldn't make it a better infantry killer than vehicle/monster killer since a Bolter or Flamer could do the same thing without wasting damage output better used elsewhere.
Elbows wrote: So, one curiosity about the flamer mechanic (perhaps someone from AoS can elaborate).
8" range which is the same as the template and D6 hits which is okay. People will complain about rolling 1's, etc. when face to face with a swarm. However to offset that...if you're within 8" of a single model from a swarm, and roll 6 hits. Will the rest of the unit (technically out of range) take those hits? If so, the flamer just balanced itself out tremendously by spiking its own range through additional hits.
OR...(in AoS at least) do all of the stuck models need to be within the actual 8" range?
PS: I'm also happy to see templates go solely because we can re-introduce proper hand flamers and large flamers (which used to shoot about 4" and like 12" respectively). I hated when they dropped to three templates and shoe-horned every weapon int the game into those three.
The average is 3.5. Yes it might roll a 1. Yes it might roll a 6. It doesn't matter. The average is 3.5.
Looking at rubrics being able to take all flamers should give people indication that you probably won't have just one or two in the near future.
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
while thinking of fixed damage for heavy weapons (like 3 wounds for lascannon) was always unrealistic because GW likes those random roll
I really hoped for at least to have multiples of a D3 as basic.
short range flamer doing 1 hit to a unit
can never think of a situation were only one model was below the template
straight nerf against mass-infantry and they are now the perfect weapon for killing single models in short range
lascannon with 1-6 damge is the same unreliable gambling as now.
with a lucky 6 the tank is done, with a 1 nothing happens
and it is worse in killing Terminators in 8th than in 7th (by doing the math)
so a nerf here too, because lascannons were already too strong
so cheaper spamable high ROF weapons are still better at killing tanks because of the more reliable damage output
guess Heavy Bolter will be Heavy3, S5, AP-1and either D1 or D D3
and that Marines who's greatest enemy are other Marines don't use weapons that are made to kill marines (so at least have AP-1) has always been the strangest thing about 40k
JohnnyHell wrote: Stops an anti-tank gun mowing down troops, or a flamer over-cooking tough models. Bloody simple and lovely.
Actually it does not in case of a flamer - it now does extra attacks even against single-model units
Eh. Wrong example then on a super new thing, but you got the gist. The anti-tank bit stands, lascannons are wasted on shooting troopers, and if flamers DO overcook then actually that's actually represetative of real-ish... so even better! :-D But other D6 or D3 damage things would be overkill on a 1W infantryman, as it should be.
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
This is not Age of Sigmar. And you're not taking all lascannons.
JohnnyHell wrote: Stops an anti-tank gun mowing down troops, or a flamer over-cooking tough models. Bloody simple and lovely.
Actually it does not in case of a flamer - it now does extra attacks even against single-model units
Eh. Wrong example then on a super new thing, but you got the gist. The anti-tank bit stands, lascannons are wasted on shooting troopers, and if flamers DO overcook then actually that's actually represetative of real-ish... so even better! :-D But other D6 or D3 damage things would be overkill on a 1W infantryman, as it should be.
Even if they do 'overcook' it will be against some tough and likely well armored opponents.
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
Take a mixture of weapons and stop min maxing?
besides most people will still have tanks and transportation that those lascannon batteries can do something with.
Hragged wrote: Liking the weapon profiles, and happy to see the move away from templates! Always hated hovering those things above minis, this is much cleaner.
glad its gone.
no more arguing about the 1 atom touching some stray lint coming off of a base on one model (honestly i dont care if they are willing to bitch about it i just give it to them) and oh thank god no more figuring out how stuff works on multi level terrain and hitting people out of los.
JohnnyHell wrote: Stops an anti-tank gun mowing down troops, or a flamer over-cooking tough models. Bloody simple and lovely.
Actually it does not in case of a flamer - it now does extra attacks even against single-model units
Eh. Wrong example then on a super new thing, but you got the gist. The anti-tank bit stands, lascannons are wasted on shooting troopers, and if flamers DO overcook then actually that's actually represetative of real-ish... so even better! :-D But other D6 or D3 damage things would be overkill on a 1W infantryman, as it should be.
Yeah, gotta say if they're willing to put a bigger range on the number of shots weapons get than 1-5 I'd be fine with the weapon system. I still think having the damage not spill over is a bit weird but eh, it is a different system.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.
But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.
Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?
Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".
My guess is that the Heavy Bolter will be 36' Heavy 3, Str 5, -1 Armor, 1 wound weapon. The Heavy Flamer will be 8"(maybe more?) Assault d6, Str 5, -1 Armor, 1 wound.
Mark my words, a Gravgun is going to be something like 18" Rapid Fire 2, Str 6, Roll Under Armor Save, 2 Wounds or something to that effect.
kodos wrote: lascannon with 1-6 damge is the same unreliable gambling as now.
with a lucky 6 the tank is done, with a 1 nothing happens
so cheaper spamable high ROF weapons are still better at killing tanks because of the more reliable damage output
Guard Lascannon teams got a whole lot cooler though, eh? 3 x D6 W caused if they all hit (I know, that lovely 1/8 chance that all of them hit BUT WE CAN DREAM).
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
Take a mixture of weapons and stop min maxing?
besides most people will still have tanks and transportation that those lascannon batteries can do something with.
The issue is if their army is min maxed one way or the other, it doesn't matter if yours is balanced, half of it will be less effective. It could definitely work, it all depends on the interactions between weapons, wounds, armor , toughness etc. My kneejerk is that non-carrying damage is silly but It could work fine.
Wow... Just... wow...
I mean the hell they teach kids in the school these days?
The math would result in EXACTLY THE SAME.
Not been to school for decades - I don;t get how as you only roll for the actual damage after seeing if you save but ok. If you are bored - pm me with how it works.
I echo earlier comments about the flamer. A D6 roll instead of a template? Not for me. We know from real life that flamers are eratic weapons in that they spray all over the place and accuracy is very hard to achieve for obvious reasons. You blanket an area with flame. it's not precision.
Example: You're a guardsman armed with a flamer. 40 Tyranid basic troop things (the name escapes me, my apologies) are running towards you from all directions.
You spray them with flame. Law of averages says that a good deal will be hit. And yet, with the D6 system, you may only hit 1 measly Tyranid...
On the other hand, a single enemy charging the flamer, bobbing, weaving, and zi-zagging, could be hit 6 times...
It doesn't add up for me. Yeah, the lone attacker would still be hit by the template, but at least the template would give more hits on the 40 Tyranids, which would be a lot fairer.
I heard lasguns give you a positive save modifier :-D :-D :-D
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I echo earlier comments about the flamer. A D6 roll instead of a template? Not for me. We know from real life that flamers are eratic weapons in that they spray all over the place and accuracy is very hard to achieve for obvious reasons. You blanket an area with flame. it's not precision.
Example: You're a guardsman armed with a flamer. 40 Tyranid basic troop things (the name escapes me, my apologies) are running towards you from all directions.
You spray them with flame. Law of averages says that a good deal will be hit. And yet, with the D6 system, you may only hit 1 measly Tyranid...
On the other hand, a single enemy charging the flamer, bobbing, weaving, and zi-zagging, could be hit 6 times...
It doesn't add up for me. Yeah, the lone attacker would still be hit by the template, but at least the template would give more hits on the 40 Tyranids, which would be a lot fairer.
Someone isn't keen on having the new faster Hormagaunts up in his grille, eh? :-D
Edit: it could actually make sense: lone dude gets DOUSED with fuel as he runs up, multiple peeps are harder to get lots of on the fly, but volume of flames might just do it. I'm cool with it.
The issue is if their army is min maxed one way or the other, it doesn't matter if yours is balanced, half of it will be less effective. It could definitely work, it all depends on the interactions between weapons, wounds, armor , toughness etc. My kneejerk is that non-carrying damage is silly but It could work fine.
one way or another im excited to see whats going to happen. its not like the current system is any better.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.
It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).
You're forgetting that in last eddition, not only could the vehicle be killed in one shot... but it was also likely to lose its weapons or become immobilized rendering it useless. So yes, less change to outright explode, but it would also often just end up stapled to the ground in your deployment zone wishing it had a lascannon instead of a multimelta.
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
Sigmar is so simple that everything is good at damaging everything. Sure some things will be damaged more by better rend whilst others will be damaged more by raw number of hits, so there is some level of distinction... But it's not all that granular or varied in that respect.
That's not a criticism, it's a four page core ruleset and simple by design. But they're clearly going for more variation here where shooting an anti-tank round at a single person is a waste of high-end munitions.
JohnnyHell wrote: I heard lasguns give you a positive save modifier :-D :-D :-D
That would be awesome, except it wouldn't make Terminators immune to them, but a Tactical Squad could shrug off lasgun fire fairly easily with a 2+ against a Str 3 weapon.
Wow... Just... wow...
I mean the hell they teach kids in the school these days?
The math would result in EXACTLY THE SAME.
Not been to school for decades - I don;t get how as you only roll for the actual damage after seeing if you save but ok. If you are bored - pm me with how it works.
Shoot 6 shots of 1 damage against a 4+ save Save 3 take 3 wounds. shoot 3 shots of 2 damage and You'll either do 2 or 4 wounds in a single round of shooting sure, but it averages out to 3.
It's slightly different but over the course of play works out exactly the same; just makes individual saves more dramatic.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.
But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.
Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?
Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".
Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.
JohnnyHell wrote: I heard lasguns give you a positive save modifier :-D :-D :-D
That would be awesome, except it wouldn't make Terminators immune to them, but a Tactical Squad could shrug off lasgun fire fairly easily with a 2+ against a Str 3 weapon.
99% 1s always fail. They tried to have 1s not always fail in Sigmar at first...it didn't last long.
Elbows wrote: So, one curiosity about the flamer mechanic (perhaps someone from AoS can elaborate).
8" range which is the same as the template and D6 hits which is okay. People will complain about rolling 1's, etc. when face to face with a swarm. However to offset that...if you're within 8" of a single model from a swarm, and roll 6 hits. Will the rest of the unit (technically out of range) take those hits? If so, the flamer just balanced itself out tremendously by spiking its own range through additional hits.
OR...(in AoS at least) do all of the stuck models need to be within the actual 8" range?
PS: I'm also happy to see templates go solely because we can re-introduce proper hand flamers and large flamers (which used to shoot about 4" and like 12" respectively). I hated when they dropped to three templates and shoe-horned every weapon int the game into those three.
From my understanding, The unit takes wounds as a whole no matter the distance they are apart. So if you have a unit of 10 guys all hiding fully behind a wall but one dude is standing out in the open and I target that unit with an attack or spell that specifies Unit and not model, and deal enough wounds, it allocates them across the entire unit killing them all even if they were out of LoS.
I like this system from a hobbyist stand point because it drove me nuts having people drop plastic templates onto my models...And in Warhammer fantasy people would bicker for ever on what was "fully" or "partial" under the template because for some reason there was a difference.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.
But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.
Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?
Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".
Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.
xerxeshavelock wrote: I'm sure one of the recent articles said vehicles would have custom damage tables. I wonder how they trigger?
From memory of the stream, taking wounds to a threshold can trigger reduced stats or special effects, like moving slower, or fire being less accurate, etc.
Wow... Just... wow...
I mean the hell they teach kids in the school these days?
The math would result in EXACTLY THE SAME.
Not been to school for decades - I don;t get how as you only roll for the actual damage after seeing if you save but ok. If you are bored - pm me with how it works.
Note: it *does* matter if you make a save, but since we're working with averages we don't really take that into account.
If you took this equation (3 * 2 * 2) you get 12, right?
If you did it this way (2 * 3 * 2) you still get 12.
What was calculated was the probability of something happening based on the appropriate amount of failed armor saves.
xerxeshavelock wrote: I'm sure one of the recent articles said vehicles would have custom damage tables. I wonder how they trigger?
From memory of the stream, taking wounds to a threshold can trigger reduced stats or special effects, like moving slower, or fire being less accurate, etc.
Take a look at the Kharadron Arkanaut Frigate Damage Table for an Idea on how it might work:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.
But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.
Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?
Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".
Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.
Yeah, and per their own fluff repeated hits on the same spot from lasguns can fuse chitin and armor.
So if a squad of Lasguns hit the same target, can we remove points of Movement from people?
Honestly, it seems like you want boltguns to be something bigger or better.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.
But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.
Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?
Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".
Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.
Lots of stuff is supposed to do lots of stuff in the fluff. Things contradict the fluff in many, many places. Gameplay is more important, frankly.
Think it through. Like for example, boltguns only shoot 24" on the table - a smaller effective range to scale than most modern handguns have. Why no consternation on that fluff disparity?
The fluff is also extremely, extremely inconsistent. One author's boltgun is another author's heavy bolter.
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
Not quite sure what you mean. In AOS most models that have a tough of 4 have more wounds. If Following the AOS example, each Marine and Ork would have two wounds, so on an average roll, a Lascannon would kill two guys. It wouldn't wipe the whole squad. And I really think they will limit the number of these weapons.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.
But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.
Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?
Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".
Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.
Yeah, and per their own fluff repeated hits on the same spot from lasguns can fuse chitin and armor.
So if a squad of Lasguns hit the same target, can we remove points of Movement from people?
Honestly, it seems like you want boltguns to be something bigger or better.
I would just like to see boltguns being effective against light armoured infantry. I'm not expecting them to be able to gun down landraiders with one shot.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I echo earlier comments about the flamer. A D6 roll instead of a template? Not for me. We know from real life that flamers are eratic weapons in that they spray all over the place and accuracy is very hard to achieve for obvious reasons. You blanket an area with flame. it's not precision.
Example: You're a guardsman armed with a flamer. 40 Tyranid basic troop things (the name escapes me, my apologies) are running towards you from all directions.
You spray them with flame. Law of averages says that a good deal will be hit. And yet, with the D6 system, you may only hit 1 measly Tyranid...
On the other hand, a single enemy charging the flamer, bobbing, weaving, and zi-zagging, could be hit 6 times...
It doesn't add up for me. Yeah, the lone attacker would still be hit by the template, but at least the template would give more hits on the 40 Tyranids, which would be a lot fairer.
Those complaints don't bother me at all. A single model taking more hits from the flamer just seems to represent the flamer covering more of the single model. If the flames grazed him or just hit a limb it would be like taking 1 wound, getting hit more directly so it washes over his whole body would be the effect of taking 6 hits.
Hitting the swarm but only dealing 1 hit would be more like you got one of the models covered but the others were able to dodge out of the way of the brunt of the flames.
It actually used to bother me that getting shot once with lasgun did as much damage to a single model as potentially being completely bathed in flames. The flamethrower should have chances to do more damage to a single model because it could inflict damage on more parts of the body simultaneously.
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
Not quite sure what you mean. In AOS most models that have a tough of 4 have more wounds. If Following the AOS example, each Marine and Ork would have two wounds, so on an average roll, a Lascannon would kill two guys. It wouldn't wipe the whole squad. And I really think they will limit the number of these weapons.
Except we know the Lascannon can only kill one guy, tops. So no limiting needed, and the rules represent what it should be/do.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.
But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.
Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?
Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".
Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.
Lots of stuff is supposed to do lots of stuff in the fluff. Things contradict the fluff in many, many places. Gameplay is more important, frankly.
Think it through. Like for example, boltguns only shoot 24" on the table - a smaller effective range to scale than most modern handguns have. Why no consternation on that fluff disparity?
The fluff is also extremely, extremely inconsistent. One author's boltgun is another author's heavy bolter.
I would quite happily boost a boltgun's range to 30 inches.
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
Not quite sure what you mean. In AOS most models that have a tough of 4 have more wounds. If Following the AOS example, each Marine and Ork would have two wounds, so on an average roll, a Lascannon would kill two guys. It wouldn't wipe the whole squad. And I really think they will limit the number of these weapons.
I started thinking about it in the context of the rules we've seen and with some of the "spillover" type damage being shifted to number of shots. It seems like it should be fine. A little odd but hey, it's a different system and has different needs than sigmar did. Real quick, we've already seen that marines only have 1 wound and i think that they get away with being 'frail' on paper because spillover works differently.
And not a very good one if these new changes are anything to go by.
Keep in mind that if Bolters have a save modifier it means that Marines would only get a 4+ save against one of the most common infantry weapons in the game. If your view of game quality is that it should match fluff quality maybe having Marines die in droves to baseline weaponry isn't the hill to die on.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.
But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.
Welcome to a little thing called abstraction!
GW has had issues with the armour save system since time immemorial.
In RT and 2nd Edition, save mods were used and the range was both large in addition to -1 mods being everywhere. Bolters, lasguns, shuricats, you name it. They had a -1 mod. This was bad. Stuff that paid a premium for heavy armour never got the save they paid for, anything with a low save just didn't get a save at all. What was the point of having a save value if you never rolled it? That's bad design!
In 3rd Edition to 7th Edition we went to the AP system. Finally, high armour models got their save against weapons that didn't pierce armour effectively. Sadly AP5-6 was still common enough that most lightly armoured models still never rolled a save unless it was a cover save. So that bit of bad design still existed. But the worse problem? The all-or-nothing nature meant people started packing AP2 weapons 24/7 and simply denied all (non inulnerable) saves. This led to a proliferation of invulnerable saves to compensate (because GW remove any system of modifiers that allowed them to make minor tweaks to survivability). So now against a great many weapons, things that paid a premium for a good save just weren't getting a save at all (as opposed to simply always getting a worse save). Marines that were saving against plasma on a 5+ in 2nd Edition now just died to them outright and everybody and their dog had access to AP2 weaponry in droves.
So modifiers allowed for a gradual approach where things that paid for a good save still got to save, even against devastating attacks, but it basically marginalized low saves (making them pointless bits of fluff). But applying them to widely and to deeply meant that the save printed on the tin was not what you got. With AP, high armour models no longer got modified by crappy small arms but now attacks that were deemed devastating simply ignored the armour they paid for instead of gradually making the save worse.
The bottom line, when using a d6, you can't go overboard with modifiers or you break them. By limiting you range and not applying it willy nilly you can achieve the positive effects of the 2nd/RT mod system while getting the upshots of the AP system. This comes with a sideline bonus of making poor saves meaningful.
In general 40k has been to "and this ignores your save" happy for its own good. Now it can play around more with low-ball saves on lighter infantry. The bottom line is that a game with a d6 randomizer can't be nuanced and varied. Each time you slap a +1 or a -1 somewhere it has a massive effect on the probability. So this means that the system simply isn't fine enough to model the difference in penetration versus autoguns, lasguns, and bolters. And the second you make infantry small arms -1 save or AP5-6 by default you suddenly slice off a chunk of design space in doing so.
End of the day, bolters don't need to defeat armour perfectly, if we want Orks, Nid greeblies, IG, and other lightly armoured things to go down then we can apply no save to them (they're wearing armour but it is useless against the weapons seen on the average battlefield) or we can give them a 6+ save. Now there is a marked difference between a 5+ and 6+ save and the system mechanics can explore that for once instead of everything just glossing over any save worse than a 4+ in most cases.
I'm glad GW bit the bullet and went for a narrower range of mods, applied more sparingly. That is really the best one can hope for when your randomizer is a d6.
Yeah, 30 inches wont get you to anywhere near modern effective rifle ranges.
Many modern rifles are effective out to 300-600 meters. A boltgun is effective to less than 40m according to 40k ground scale. Bumping that another six inches is a drop in the bucket. If realism or sticking to the fluff is your concern then bolters (and all other arms in the game) should reach across the average table. But that makes for a bad game with no need for positioning or maneuver. So ground scale is abstracted and crunched down. Every stat in the game is an abstraction or compromise set in place to make for a better game. Some people have just internalized certain abstractions over others.
Note: it *does* matter if you make a save, but since we're working with averages we don't really take that into account.
Indeed it does matter, but only for a bell curve spread "smoothness" - the average result, spread width and height would not be affected.
Basically it means to-wound and to-save rolls would be more dramatic.
Wow... Just... wow...
I mean the hell they teach kids in the school these days?
The math would result in EXACTLY THE SAME.
Not been to school for decades - I don;t get how as you only roll for the actual damage after seeing if you save but ok. If you are bored - pm me with how it works.
Note: it *does* matter if you make a save, but since we're working with averages we don't really take that into account.
If you took this equation (3 * 2 * 2) you get 12, right?
If you did it this way (2 * 3 * 2) you still get 12.
What was calculated was the probability of something happening based on the appropriate amount of failed armor saves.
Ah Ok I didn't understand that we were assuming that armour save fails. thanks for the explanation - I sorta get it
Its interesting to see GW taking some notes from PP, but imo doing it better.
In Warmachine Hordes,Its hard to remember what I can and cannot do based on what aspect of my HP wheel is gone. I find it un-enjoyable. On the flip side in AoS, I can easily see on my chart, at 5-6 wounds, one of my attacks only has 12" range now instead of its full 18" or my slashing talons only has 4 attacks instead of its base 6
I would just like to see boltguns being effective against light armoured infantry. I'm not expecting them to be able to gun down landraiders with one shot.
Except you're not arguing that they're "ineffective"--your argument is effectively that Guardsmen should get no armor save period against them.
No. Screw that noise. We had how many editions of "all or nothing"? Build a bridge and get over it.
Vaktathi wrote: A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.
I said it would be more likely and that the average number of shots required to kill would be fewer, not that it was guaranteed one shotting.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I echo earlier comments about the flamer. A D6 roll instead of a template? Not for me. We know from real life that flamers are eratic weapons in that they spray all over the place and accuracy is very hard to achieve for obvious reasons. You blanket an area with flame. it's not precision.
Example: You're a guardsman armed with a flamer. 40 Tyranid basic troop things (the name escapes me, my apologies) are running towards you from all directions.
You spray them with flame. Law of averages says that a good deal will be hit. And yet, with the D6 system, you may only hit 1 measly Tyranid...
On the other hand, a single enemy charging the flamer, bobbing, weaving, and zi-zagging, could be hit 6 times...
It doesn't add up for me. Yeah, the lone attacker would still be hit by the template, but at least the template would give more hits on the 40 Tyranids, which would be a lot fairer.
Those complaints don't bother me at all. A single model taking more hits from the flamer just seems to represent the flamer covering more of the single model. If the flames grazed him or just hit a limb it would be like taking 1 wound, getting hit more directly so it washes over his whole body would be the effect of taking 6 hits.
Hitting the swarm but only dealing 1 hit would be more like you got one of the models covered but the others were able to dodge out of the way of the brunt of the flames.
It actually used to bother me that getting shot once with lasgun did as much damage to a single model as potentially being completely bathed in flames. The flamethrower should have chances to do more damage to a single model because it could inflict damage on more parts of the body simultaneously.
If a single model gets hit by the flamer, then yeah, they should suffer, because flamers are obviously deadly weapons. I'm saying that it shoulder by harder to hit the lone guy than the swarm.
D6+1 hits, or even D6+2 hits against a swarm, a swarm being, say, 10+ models, would be fair.
D3 hits against a lone model, to reflect the difficulty in hitting a lone model, would be fair in my book.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.
Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.
As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.
Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.
It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).
I think I'd be ok with that actually. Not being able to be one shot, but still getting armor saves, even if more fragile. Seems good to me. I wonder how Leviathans will work now.
well, I think there is an overfocus on the one shot. A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now, other changes may balance that out, but if costs and weapons access remains roughly the same, then these units are going to be even worse off potentially.
Well yeah. If you have an anti tank squad shooting anti tank weapons, you can fully expect something to die
Right, but the point is that, in 7E, vehicles were too easy to kill, and it looks like, at least from what we can see so far, they'll be even easier to kill in 8E, which aggravates that issue.
Now, other things may change such that it is not an issue, but if not, vehicles look to be getting a survival decrease not an enhancement.
Vaktathi wrote: A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.
Now let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.
I said it would be more likely and that the average number of shots required to kill would be fewer, not that it was guaranteed one shotting.
I've never once seen a dreadnought survive more than 3 lascannons or 2 meltas in 7th and I play gooft triple contemptor+venerable lists.
I would just like to see boltguns being effective against light armoured infantry. I'm not expecting them to be able to gun down landraiders with one shot.
Except you're not arguing that they're "ineffective"--your argument is effectively that Guardsmen should get no armor save period against them.
No. Screw that noise. We had how many editions of "all or nothing"? Build a bridge and get over it.
Why should a guardsman, one amongst untold billions of humans, be getting a save against humanity's finest warriors, equipped with the best weapons it can offer?
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
OK, maybe I missed that, where did you see stated that a Lascannon can only hit one guy?
Not quite sure what you mean. In AOS most models that have a tough of 4 have more wounds. If Following the AOS example, each Marine and Ork would have two wounds, so on an average roll, a Lascannon would kill two guys. It wouldn't wipe the whole squad. And I really think they will limit the number of these weapons.
Except we know the Lascannon can only kill one guy, tops. So no limiting needed, and the rules represent what it should be/do.
You're forgetting that in last eddition, not only could the vehicle be killed in one shot... but it was also likely to lose its weapons or become immobilized rendering it useless. So yes, less change to outright explode, but it would also often just end up stapled to the ground in your deployment zone wishing it had a lascannon instead of a multimelta.
That might be fair in some ways, but that was also the argument put forth when HP's were introduced and glances no longer rolled on thr damage table and pen's were made less dangerous, and it didnt actually turn out to be a net boon for vehicles then either. If it's just dead instead of disabled, you're not much further ahead
And not a very good one if these new changes are anything to go by.
Keep in mind that if Bolters have a save modifier it means that Marines would only get a 4+ save against one of the most common infantry weapons in the game. If your view of game quality is that it should match fluff quality maybe having Marines die in droves to baseline weaponry isn't the hill to die on.
It was never a problem in the past, because AP5 bolter was never modifying an armour save of 3+ for your marine power armour.
This new system is one they have obviously chosen, but IMO, they have went the wrong way about it.
Verviedi wrote: Images from the video. That buzzsaw looks amazing.
These images are really interesting. Especially in this new age of GW hiding easter eggs in plain sight. The background shadows indicate a different silhouette for blight drones and there is some sort of beast/large model in the background of another image. Totally interesting.
And not a very good one if these new changes are anything to go by.
And to the ignore list you go!
Your complaints vary from "i don't like this simplificaiton because real life" to "i feel this sci-fi weapon should not work like how it's counterparts work in real life". It is not useful and just noise.
OT: So we go for more of Dawn of War style shootinh huh. A lascannon can just glance a tank doing minimal damage or take half health, most interesting.
Vaktathi wrote: I said it would be more likely and that the average number of shots required to kill would be fewer, not that it was guaranteed one shotting.
Well, you're right. but the difference isn't big: 6.17 vs 6.37 lascannon shots at average are needed in new and old rules to kill a dread.
Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.
Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.
That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.
Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.
Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.
OK, maybe I missed that, where did you see stated that a Lascannon can only hit one guy?
Not quite sure what you mean. In AOS most models that have a tough of 4 have more wounds. If Following the AOS example, each Marine and Ork would have two wounds, so on an average roll, a Lascannon would kill two guys. It wouldn't wipe the whole squad. And I really think they will limit the number of these weapons.
Except we know the Lascannon can only kill one guy, tops. So no limiting needed, and the rules represent what it should be/do.
It was a bit jarring to see for a sigmar player because in THAT system having damage not spill over would basically make 200+ model armies mandatory. However, looking at everything else we've seen I've come to the conclusion that it's likely not going to be an issue based on SvT and how much frailer everything is ON PAPER than in Sigmar. I'm chill now, it's all good.
Right, but the point is that, in 7E, vehicles were too easy to kill, and it looks like, at least from what we can see so far, they'll be even easier to kill in 8E, which aggravates that issue.
Now, other things may change such that it is not an issue, but if not, vehicles look to be getting a survival decrease not an enhancement.
Ima gonna go ahead and make the assumption that vehicles will also gain the benefits of terrain. 3+ saves + 1+ from some bushes are going to make it an EXTREMELY tough cookie to crack against non tank weapons. and the whole thing about tanks dieing so much was because high rate of fire medium str weapons was wrecking them. thats no longer the case.
(how is there not a salt "orkmoticon?!)
hyper velocity is no joke.
