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.
As much as I bagged on 6E and 7E for making vehicles way too easy to kill, even in 7E an AV12 Dread should require two or three times as many shots to kill as your experience posits. 3 BS4 lascannons should on average inflict 1 HP, and have a 1/6 combined chance to explode a dread. If you have never seen a Dread survive more shots than that, I would posit that your experience is dramatically, radically, outside statistical norm.
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.
Ap was straight up terrible. It made armor completely binary and was just a terrible design space to work in. It's the reason invulnerable saves became so prevelant which in turn created D weapons. Rend is better for the game. even if it is more abstract.
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.
But AP as a system sucks from a gameplay and design space standpoint. If the price for getting rid of it is that Guardsmen get a paltry save against Bolters, then I'm fine with that (especially if the concept of a 'save' is being collapsed into one value instead of trying to represent armor, cover and invulnerables separately).
Trying to argue that Bolters should have -1 rend in the new system just to uphold an arbitrary level of detail would just break the whole thing again.
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.
A- -men.
I've long hated that the game basically didn't notice any non-invuln/cover save worse than a 4+. Why even bother writing rules for low-end armour if the actual scale started at carapace for all intents and purposes (and carapace was outright ignored by any credible anti-infantry weapon).
By moving the bar up to removing a low-end save to the heavier stuff, GW has opened up a wonderful world where 5+ and 6+ armour saves can be a thing. Hell, with cover providing armour bonuses they can actually put up good survival numbers against small arms now.
Anything that opens up design space ignored by the last seven editions of the game is a good move.
Honestly, I love most of these changes, but I can see people being hesitant. I just don't see the point in saying the game is officially screwed based on a release of maybe 10% of the new rules
Vaktathi wrote: 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
The difference now is what it is good at killing vehicles. In 7th edition Lascannons are borderline useless while S6 spam glances vehicles to death. New Lascannons will be very effective against vehicles while S6 spam will be far less effective (because far more wounds and a save).
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.
I don't think I can even tell what you want or prefer here. I'm personally pretty excited about all the changes and much prefer the new saves and modifiers system. All or nothing was dumb. Why was a missile substantially more effective against a crisis suit than a riptide? Is that the system that you preferred or made more sense to you? Should a tactical doing jumpjacks on a hill be just as easy to kill with a boltgun as one hunkered down behind a wall? Those are the weird things that were happening in the previous system.
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.
As much as I bagged on 6E and 7E for making vehicles way too easy to kill, even in 7E an AV12 Dread should require two or three times as many shots to kill as your experience posits. 3 BS4 lascannons should on average inflict 1 HP, and have a 1/6 combined chance to explode a dread. If you have never seen a Dread survive more shots than that, I would posit that your experience is dramatically, radically, outside statistical norm.
well yeah, but here's the thing, the statistical norm isn't what you're dealing with, you're dealing with player experience. When a dread can explode instantly to a single shot you remember that way more often then you remember a group of lascannons plinking off 1 HP. The reason the new system is better is because you don't have players shying away from the model as much. It still take about 7 shots to kill a dread from a lascannon sure, but the fact that it CAN'T be one and done means people feel better about the model. It's actually especially important for competitive players because eliminating 'it blows up turn one to a lucky hit' is a big part of creating a tournament list. It's just a better system now.
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.
Ap was straight up terrible. It made armor completely binary and was just a terrible design space to work in. It's the reason invulnerable saves became so prevelant which in turn created D weapons. Rend is better for the game. even if it is more abstract.
Exactly this. This should reduce the number of subsystems present in the game. I do hope invulnerable saves exist in the form of the ability to reroll failed saves of 1 (5++), 1 and 2 (4++), and 1 2 and 3 (3++).
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.
A very good explanation.
Probably a subject for another topic, but it seems to me that a weakness of the D6 system could be to blame with the whole issue of armour piercing modifiers.
Vaktathi wrote: 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
The difference now is what it is good at killing vehicles. In 7th edition Lascannons are borderline useless while S6 spam glances vehicles to death. New Lascannons will be very effective against vehicles while S6 spam will be far less effective (because far more wounds and a save).
I think that's an important point. Lascannons may be just as deadly to vehicles as before, but at least it incentivizes people to actually bring lascannons instead of generalist midrange weaponary.
It's pretty amazing that people are complaining that Marines don't auto kill Orks, Guardsmen and Tyranid now. I do believe those armies weren't known for their appearances as viable armies.
What exactly is the issue? Oh, noes. They get a save.....
Vaktathi wrote: 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
The difference now is what it is good at killing vehicles. In 7th edition Lascannons are borderline useless while S6 spam glances vehicles to death. New Lascannons will be very effective against vehicles while S6 spam will be far less effective (because far more wounds and a save).
I think that's an important point. Lascannons may be just as deadly to vehicles as before, but at least it incentivizes people to actually bring lascannons instead of generalist midrange weaponary.
Yes! It's exciting. Having to choose is cool. List building can't play catch-all and expect to excel.
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.
Ap was straight up terrible. It made armor completely binary and was just a terrible design space to work in. It's the reason invulnerable saves became so prevelant which in turn created D weapons. Rend is better for the game. even if it is more abstract.
Exactly this. This should reduce the number of subsystems present in the game. I do hope invulnerable saves exist in the form of the ability to reroll failed saves of 1 (5++), 1 and 2 (4++), and 1 2 and 3 (3++).
Hoping for some flavor of ward save or possibly even a rending cap. so terminators can never be worse than a 5+
JohnnyHell wrote: D6 system's lack of granularity has been with us for 30 years now! Same issues, same super randomness. But we just... can't... give it up!
If they change the D6 I want a deck of cards system. Malifaux is fun.
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.
I don't think I can even tell what you want or prefer here. I'm personally pretty excited about all the changes and much prefer the new saves and modifiers system. All or nothing was dumb. Why was a missile substantially more effective against a crisis suit than a riptide? Is that the system that you preferred or made more sense to you? Should a tactical doing jumpjacks on a hill be just as easy to kill with a boltgun as one hunkered down behind a wall? Those are the weird things that were happening in the previous system.
Fair enough.
I suppose that at the end of the day, because everybody is different, they expect different things from a game system.
I think I've banged the drum on this bolter issue long enough.
I'll let other people talk about something else and move the debate on.
This is only relevant if they keep that rule in 40k and if those models still don't get a save lol.
Oh totally agree but they seem to be translating armour across as is - but as you we dont know what special rules there will be to replace or if they are keeping FNP, Eternal Warrior etc.
Juts though tit was a odd but interesting rule that AOS might translate over
looking at some weapon profiles flamer, bolt gun and lascannon
I dont see a huge problem with it but i have a question the lascannon does d6 damage so if i hit a unit does it do d6 damage to the unit or just one guy in said unit ?
And not a very good one if these new changes are anything to go by.
That's just thick; almost everyone loves the suggested changes so far, and the people who are nay-saying are being effectively refuted on nearly all of their complaints; with explanations of why things should work in the fluff when thats the argument, with examples from other games where similar mechanics work when its suggested that they wont, and in extreme cases even proof that things would be possible in the real world when its suggested that things 'don't make sense'.
Every change suggested so far is a big improvement over the status quo, they're just new and that makes them uncomfortable.
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.
Ap was straight up terrible. It made armor completely binary and was just a terrible design space to work in. It's the reason invulnerable saves became so prevelant which in turn created D weapons. Rend is better for the game. even if it is more abstract.
Exactly this. This should reduce the number of subsystems present in the game. I do hope invulnerable saves exist in the form of the ability to reroll failed saves of 1 (5++), 1 and 2 (4++), and 1 2 and 3 (3++).
Hoping for some flavor of ward save or possibly even a rending cap. so terminators can never be worse than a 5+
sigmar caps rend at 3 and has 'mortal wound' that just ignore saves altogether, terminators might get a mortal wound type save they might not, it honestly doesn't matter they're so much more durable now than they were it's ridiculous.
10penceman wrote: looking at some weapon profiles flamer, bolt gun and lascannon
I dont see a huge problem with it but i have a question the lascannon does d6 damage so if i hit a unit does it do d6 damage to the unit or just one guy in said unit ?
They explain that on the blog post, but it does d6 damage to the one guy it hits in said unit.
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.
As much as I bagged on 6E and 7E for making vehicles way too easy to kill, even in 7E an AV12 Dread should require two or three times as many shots to kill as your experience posits. 3 BS4 lascannons should on average inflict 1 HP, and have a 1/6 combined chance to explode a dread. If you have never seen a Dread survive more shots than that, I would posit that your experience is dramatically, radically, outside statistical norm.
well yeah, but here's the thing, the statistical norm isn't what you're dealing with, you're dealing with player experience. When a dread can explode instantly to a single shot you remember that way more often then you remember a group of lascannons plinking off 1 HP. The reason the new system is better is because you don't have players shying away from the model as much. It still take about 7 shots to kill a dread from a lascannon sure, but the fact that it CAN'T be one and done means people feel better about the model. It's actually especially important for competitive players because eliminating 'it blows up turn one to a lucky hit' is a big part of creating a tournament list. It's just a better system now.
Hrm, that sounds like really bad game design from a balance perspective, and you're going to see one shots from entire units become dramatically more common (i.e. while you dont have to worry about random tac lascannom #38583822 in the back blowing up your tank randomly, Lascannon dev squad #3 is going to kill it in shot with dramatically greater efficacy).
10penceman wrote: looking at some weapon profiles flamer, bolt gun and lascannon
I dont see a huge problem with it but i have a question the lascannon does d6 damage so if i hit a unit does it do d6 damage to the unit or just one guy in said unit ?
the stats lines i have sen on units all have a ws with say a 3+ does that mean no matter who you are attacking you hit on that 3+ so no more ws vs ws if so isn't that a little naff as in your opponents skill in cc is moot or do you think there is more to it than that ?
Vaktathi wrote: 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
The difference now is what it is good at killing vehicles. In 7th edition Lascannons are borderline useless while S6 spam glances vehicles to death. New Lascannons will be very effective against vehicles while S6 spam will be far less effective (because far more wounds and a save).
for stuff like Scatterlasers, sure, I would agree, but at the same time we're also opening them up to a much wider array of weapons that *can* hurt them as well.
So, theyre less vulnerable to Scatterlasers and the like, but are dramatically more vulnerable to heavy weapons, and can now be hurt by common small arms as well now.
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.
adding more and more rules to the game to make things 'believable' is one of the things that busted the game in the first place.
We don't need more and more interactions, having to stop play five times to check something in the rules book was one of the biggest issues with games.
d6 is fine; and if down the line some salamanders character gets a super flamer or something, it can be its own special rules.
10penceman wrote: the stats lines i have sen on units all have a ws with say a 3+ does that mean no matter who you are attacking you hit on that 3+ so no more ws vs ws if so isn't that a little naff as in your opponents skill in cc is moot or do you think there is more to it than that ?
In AoS at least, there's a lot of special rules that duelist characters and the like get that make them better at fighting in melee. Stuff like -1 to be hit, enemies are at -1 attack, that sorta thing.
10penceman wrote: the stats lines i have sen on units all have a ws with say a 3+ does that mean no matter who you are attacking you hit on that 3+ so no more ws vs ws if so isn't that a little naff as in your opponents skill in cc is moot or do you think there is more to it than that ?
They mentioned there gonna be some modifiers to to-hit chance, so maybe we'd get our old system in a simpler wording rather than a table sheet: -1 for the target having equal or higher WS, -2 if it's double higher.
And not a very good one if these new changes are anything to go by.
Go complain somewhere else. Negativity isn't needed.
Say who?
YOu're not the center of the universe, you know.
As for the new preview, really glad that they didn't import the multi wounds weapons can kill numerous models of AOS (another terrible rule from that abortion of a game).
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.
Adding hugely powerful space magic to the game was the mistake. Psychic phase was necessary fix making it semi-bearable.
Don't you remember how Psychic Powers were in the end of 6th edition? It was an enormous mess. They could be casted at any phase of the game, it was hard to keep track of who had used his power allocations, people wanted to go back a phase to activate some power or forgot whether they still were able to activate Force Weapons...
Sadly, Psychic Power Creep is here to stay and we won't return to good old times when my Dark Angels had 2 weak Powers and Ezekiel knew a third. But now they have the opportunity to at least cut some of the worst excesses out.
well yeah, but here's the thing, the statistical norm isn't what you're dealing with, you're dealing with player experience. When a dread can explode instantly to a single shot you remember that way more often then you remember a group of lascannons plinking off 1 HP. The reason the new system is better is because you don't have players shying away from the model as much. It still take about 7 shots to kill a dread from a lascannon sure, but the fact that it CAN'T be one and done means people feel better about the model. It's actually especially important for competitive players because eliminating 'it blows up turn one to a lucky hit' is a big part of creating a tournament list. It's just a better system now.
Hrm, that sounds like really bad game design from a balance perspective, and you're going to see one shots from entire units become dramatically more common (i.e. while you dont have to worry about random tac lascannom #38583822 in the back blowing up your tank randomly, Lascannon dev squad #3 is going to kill it in shot with dramatically greater efficacy).
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
Vaktathi wrote: 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
The difference now is what it is good at killing vehicles. In 7th edition Lascannons are borderline useless while S6 spam glances vehicles to death. New Lascannons will be very effective against vehicles while S6 spam will be far less effective (because far more wounds and a save).
for stuff like Scatterlasers, sure, I would agree, but at the same time we're also opening them up to a much wider array of weapons that *can* hurt them as well.
So, theyre less vulnerable to Scatterlasers and the like, but are dramatically more vulnerable to heavy weapons, and can now be hurt by common small arms as well now.
But it isn't dramatic. It is about on par.
So a few hundred shots of smaller weapons can hurt, mid range weapons likely hurt less, and dedicated anti-tank do the same.
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.
As much as I bagged on 6E and 7E for making vehicles way too easy to kill, even in 7E an AV12 Dread should require two or three times as many shots to kill as your experience posits. 3 BS4 lascannons should on average inflict 1 HP, and have a 1/6 combined chance to explode a dread. If you have never seen a Dread survive more shots than that, I would posit that your experience is dramatically, radically, outside statistical norm.
well yeah, but here's the thing, the statistical norm isn't what you're dealing with, you're dealing with player experience. When a dread can explode instantly to a single shot you remember that way more often then you remember a group of lascannons plinking off 1 HP. The reason the new system is better is because you don't have players shying away from the model as much. It still take about 7 shots to kill a dread from a lascannon sure, but the fact that it CAN'T be one and done means people feel better about the model. It's actually especially important for competitive players because eliminating 'it blows up turn one to a lucky hit' is a big part of creating a tournament list. It's just a better system now.
Hrm, that sounds like really bad game design from a balance perspective, and you're going to see one shots from entire units become dramatically more common (i.e. while you dont have to worry about random tac lascannom #38583822 in the back blowing up your tank randomly, Lascannon dev squad #3 is going to kill it in shot with dramatically greater efficacy).
What? Dude I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, a unit has 4 shots in it so it can't be a oneshot by definition of the word one. And putting an entire unit of lascannons into a singular vehicle should have a pretty decent chance of killing it by nature of the weapon.
Also what game are you playing that you're not pretty confident a Dreadnought is gonna die to 4 space marine lascannons? Finally who knows how much those 4 lascannons are gonna cost? If the dread is 100pts and 4 lascannons are 500pts I dam well want them to nuke the hell out of whatever they shoot.
Also stop thinking about a D6 as being 6 damage and start thinking of it being 3 damage, that's much closer to what it is.
And not a very good one if these new changes are anything to go by.
Go complain somewhere else. Negativity isn't needed.
Say who?
YOu're not the center of the universe, you know.
As for the new preview, really glad that they didn't import the multi wounds weapons can kill numerous models of AOS (another terrible rule from that abortion of a game).
Could you say 'abomination' instead maybe? Your choice of that word is pretty offensive. Thanks.
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
It was an example for the sake of illustration. Replace Devastators with Predator Annihilator or several tac combat squads any other similar stand in if you like. The ultimate point was that it is going to require dramatically fewer shots to kill a dread on average than was needed before, and they were already hurting there.
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
It was an example for the sake of illustration. Replace Devastators with Predator Annihilator or several tac combat squads any other similar stand in if you like. The ultimate point was that it is going to require dramatically fewer shots to kill a dread on average than was needed before, and they were already hurting there.
but it only ever took that 1 shot to kill that 1 dread. that one lucky shot that could ruin an entire game. replace dread with land raider.
its not possible for a single shot to kill a dread or landraider so im not really seeing a problem.
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
It was an example for the sake of illustration. Replace Devastators with Predator Annihilator or several tac combat squads any other similar stand in if you like. The ultimate point was that it is going to require dramatically fewer shots to kill a dread on average than was needed before, and they were already hurting there.
Not dramatically. Hell, not even significantly fewer. At average it was 6.37 in the old edition and it's gonna be 6.17 in the new.
Yeah, 0.2 lascannon shots fewer to kill a dread.
WHAT A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE!
its not possible for a single shot to kill a dread or landraider so im not really seeing a problem.
with a lascannon
we don't know if Tau weapons, melter or anything else inflict more 2D6 or more damage
and the one schot being a problem was a 3-5th edi problem
now spam is a problem/annoying and this does not change
lascannon are still bad at killing something, and you won't see lascannon dev squads in 8th as they are just gambling
I am waiting for melta to get a nerf. back in 2nd melta was second fiddle to las canons. It was -5 to save whereas a las canon was -6 and it inflicted d12 damage whereas the las canon did 2d6 all while having shorter range.
I wouldn't be shocked if melta was assault 1 s8 ap-3 d6 damage, but at half range just did an auto 6 damage.
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.
As much as I bagged on 6E and 7E for making vehicles way too easy to kill, even in 7E an AV12 Dread should require two or three times as many shots to kill as your experience posits. 3 BS4 lascannons should on average inflict 1 HP, and have a 1/6 combined chance to explode a dread. If you have never seen a Dread survive more shots than that, I would posit that your experience is dramatically, radically, outside statistical norm.
well yeah, but here's the thing, the statistical norm isn't what you're dealing with, you're dealing with player experience. When a dread can explode instantly to a single shot you remember that way more often then you remember a group of lascannons plinking off 1 HP. The reason the new system is better is because you don't have players shying away from the model as much. It still take about 7 shots to kill a dread from a lascannon sure, but the fact that it CAN'T be one and done means people feel better about the model. It's actually especially important for competitive players because eliminating 'it blows up turn one to a lucky hit' is a big part of creating a tournament list. It's just a better system now.
Hrm, that sounds like really bad game design from a balance perspective, and you're going to see one shots from entire units become dramatically more common (i.e. while you dont have to worry about random tac lascannom #38583822 in the back blowing up your tank randomly, Lascannon dev squad #3 is going to kill it in shot with dramatically greater efficacy).
What? Dude I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, a unit has 4 shots in it so it can't be a oneshot by definition of the word one.
My point was that people were overfocusing on single shots from single weapons in a game based around *unit* actions, ultimately the same investment by the opponent will be more effective and consistent overall. While random single heavy weapons wont have the small chance to blow up units in a single shot, they'll be much more capable in terms of effective damage output, whiffing dramatcially less often and inflicting crippling damage dramatically more often.
And putting an entire unit of lascannons into a singular vehicle should have a pretty decent chance of killing it by nature of the weapon.
which is a different argument than the one I was making, which is that it's going to be even easier for such weapons to do so, when such units already were too easy to kill.
Also what game are you playing that you're not pretty confident a Dreadnought is gonna die to 4 space marine lascannons?
I'm not arguing that 4 lascannons arent
a potent anti tank force, they should be, but vehicles are already too easy to kill, and, barring things like scatterlasers, theyre going to be even easier to kill. As for what game I'm playing, it's the one I've played for over a decade, through multiple editions, and that I understand the averages behind?
Finally who knows how much those 4 lascannons are gonna cost? If the dread is 100pts and 4 lascannons are 500pts I dam well want them to nuke the hell out of whatever they shoot.
And I have consistently acknowledged this point mulitple times, including my first post on the subject. But we dont know so I'm discussing the issue within the experience of the game we're thus far familiar with over many editions.
lso stop thinking about a D6 as being 6 damage and start thinking of it being 3 damage, that's much closer to what it is.
I never once attempted to do so, in fact my original math on the subject used an average of 3.5
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
It was an example for the sake of illustration. Replace Devastators with Predator Annihilator or several tac combat squads any other similar stand in if you like. The ultimate point was that it is going to require dramatically fewer shots to kill a dread on average than was needed before, and they were already hurting there.
Lascannon hits on 3 glances on 3 Dreadnought gets no save about 7 shots to kill it, but 3/4ths of the 'wounding hits' have a 1/6th chance to kill it instantly or a small chance of killing it in 2 hits (double immobilize so rolling two 5+s on 3 dice) Largest possible number of glances survived, 3; smallest number of shots needed to die 1.
Lascannon Hits of 3s wounds on 2s(S9 Vs T7) does D6 damage per shot but he gets a 6+ save Takes about 6 shots still to kill it, smallest possible number of shots is 2 to kill it. Largest number of successful wounding shots it could take to kill you, 8.
At worst it's almost exactly the same, at best you survive quite a bit longer.
The biggest point is outside of Lascannons, Bolters, and Flamers vs dreadnoughts we have no idea how anything works or what is or isn't going to be fragile. You're about a half step off from complaining about them being too fragile in 9th.
Also guilliman has lower toughness and only 1 more wound, why aren't you lamenting him?
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.
Memory bias in effect. People always harp on "omg vehicles can be one-shotted, they suck" and cite a case when their Land Raider blew up on first shot. However, in 6th edition chance to one-shot a vehicle after penetration was 6+ with AP2 weapon or worse: in 7th it is zero unless you have AP2 weapon when it's 6+, and 5+ on AP1.
How was it in 5th edition where vehicles were the king? 5+ with regular weapons, 4+ with AP1. And AP1 Weapons could do it on 6+ on glancing hits...
It was not the One-Shotting which was the problem. it was Hull Points and massive addition of Mid-Strength shooting to the game. Also, Vehicles became much easier to Assault in 6th.
Say you are 6" away from a wall of guants. With the template you might be able to clip 3 of them, but more likely just 2.
In 8th you get (on average) 3.5. it's as if the template is pointing sideways down the line.
Effectively, all flamers are now torrents.
Well, no not really. You are correct, they all receive a range boost in a way, but at the same time your never hitting more then 6 models. I have hit 9 guys before with a single template as recent as 2 weeks ago. Flamers didn't get any better or worse, they just work differently I'd say.
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
It was an example for the sake of illustration. Replace Devastators with Predator Annihilator or several tac combat squads any other similar stand in if you like. The ultimate point was that it is going to require dramatically fewer shots to kill a dread on average than was needed before, and they were already hurting there.
It is not dramatically less - by any stretch of the imagination. It is about the same.
Right now --
4 shots, 2.7 hits, 0.5 glance and 1.35 pen.
So let's scale that up to work with easier numbers:
24 shots = 3 glance and 8.1 pen
That means over the course of a 6 turn game a team of 4 lascannons could kill almost 4 dreanoughts JUST by hullpoints. Add an at leats one explode statistically and you're at 5 - this is the equivalent of 40 wounds in #New40K.
#New40K
24 shots, 16 hits, 13.3 though armor, 46 wounds
So we go from 40 to 46 a 15% increase (maybe 20%), but it is likely we won't be stunned half the time and have no risk of explosion. The only other piece of the picture we need is whether or not dreads have a damage table (small 8-10 wound monsters in AoS do not).
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
It was an example for the sake of illustration. Replace Devastators with Predator Annihilator or several tac combat squads any other similar stand in if you like. The ultimate point was that it is going to require dramatically fewer shots to kill a dread on average than was needed before, and they were already hurting there.
Not dramatically. Hell, not even significantly fewer. At average it was 6.37 in the old edition and it's gonna be 6.17 in the new.
Yeah, 0.2 lascannon shots fewer to kill a dread.
WHAT A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE!
I think we are using different math. Here's what I posted earlier.
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.
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.
The Mass Reactive is the important part as it only exploded after it pierced armour and inmbeded in the target... Messy.
Desubot wrote: but it only ever took that 1 shot to kill that 1 dread. that one lucky shot that could ruin an entire game. replace dread with land raider.
its not possible for a single shot to kill a dread or landraider so im not really seeing a problem.
In our last team game, our opponent had Land Raider Crusader filled up with Wolf Guard. On our first turn, we directed 4 Lascannons and 1 Battlecannon on it. Last shot was from my own Land Raider, I threw two sixed and blew his LRC up.
He lost 250 points just like that. Game over? No, he recovered, changed his tactics and won. My own Land Raider survived nearly intact through the game, but it didn't help...
I am ecstatic that they decided to keep the Rend values pretty constrained. Loving the weapon profiles. Likely that most AP 5 and 6 weapons will have 0 Rend. Very good to know.
Desubot wrote: but it only ever took that 1 shot to kill that 1 dread. that one lucky shot that could ruin an entire game. replace dread with land raider.
its not possible for a single shot to kill a dread or landraider so im not really seeing a problem.
In our last team game, our opponent had Land Raider Crusader filled up with Wolf Guard. On our first turn, we directed 4 Lascannons and 1 Battlecannon on it. Last shot was from my own Land Raider, I threw two sixed and blew his LRC up.
He lost 250 points just like that. Game over? No, he recovered, changed his tactics and won. My own Land Raider survived nearly intact through the game, but it didn't help...
I was more likely to immobilize mine on a damn mole hill or ant hill. Stupid dangerous terrain.
The Mass Reactive is the important part as it only exploded after it pierced armour and inmbeded in the target... Messy.
Right, but is it not possible for it to have hit at an odd angle and glanced off? It is not possible that it has to traverse through a piece of terrain and lost of some it's energy before impact?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: Oh man, is 'Bolter vs flak armour' the new 'Lasgun vs Land Raider? Please no. Please?
So we go from 40 to 46 a 15% increase (maybe 20%), but it is likely we won't be stunned half the time and have no risk of explosion. The only other piece of the picture we need is whether or not dreads have a damage table (small 8-10 wound monsters in AoS do not).
How do we know it can't be stunned or blown up? For all we know, these things could still exist in the damage table.
In fact, I would consider it awfully lame if vehicles can't leave a crater or wreck behind anymore.
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
It was an example for the sake of illustration. Replace Devastators with Predator Annihilator or several tac combat squads any other similar stand in if you like. The ultimate point was that it is going to require dramatically fewer shots to kill a dread on average than was needed before, and they were already hurting there.
Not dramatically. Hell, not even significantly fewer. At average it was 6.37 in the old edition and it's gonna be 6.17 in the new.
Yeah, 0.2 lascannon shots fewer to kill a dread.
WHAT A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE!
I think we are using different math. Here's what I posted earlier.
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.
Guiliman would only take 4 shots to down...just sayin.
All of this is irrelevant because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEW TO WOUND CHART IS YET!
So we go from 40 to 46 a 15% increase (maybe 20%), but it is likely we won't be stunned half the time and have no risk of explosion. The only other piece of the picture we need is whether or not dreads have a damage table (small 8-10 wound monsters in AoS do not).
How do we know it can't be stunned or blown up? For all we know, these things could still exist in the damage table.
In fact, I would consider it awfully lame if vehicles can't leave a crater or wreck behind anymore.
We don't know for sure yet. If anything the tables will be negatives to WS/BS or other factors rather than outright setting a conditional non-permanent status.
Red Corsair wrote: I am waiting for melta to get a nerf. back in 2nd melta was second fiddle to las canons. It was -5 to save whereas a las canon was -6 and it inflicted d12 damage whereas the las canon did 2d6 all while having shorter range.
I wouldn't be shocked if melta was assault 1 s8 ap-3 d6 damage, but at half range just did an auto 6 damage.
Or maybe just a reroll to damage within close range. Simple rule that doesn't guarantee anything.
I think we are using different math. Here's what I posted earlier.
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.
It is possible though that the Wound table is not the same anymore, so Lascannons wound T7 on 3+. This would make his calculation roughly correct. We still don't know the whole picture (including how expensive Lascannons will be - is it 4th edition cost or 7th edition cost? How powerful will ACEQ be? and so on) However, it seems obvious that Vehicles are not much, if any, tougher in this edition compared to last. Which fits what they said earlier about things dying quickly.
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
It was an example for the sake of illustration. Replace Devastators with Predator Annihilator or several tac combat squads any other similar stand in if you like. The ultimate point was that it is going to require dramatically fewer shots to kill a dread on average than was needed before, and they were already hurting there.
Not dramatically. Hell, not even significantly fewer. At average it was 6.37 in the old edition and it's gonna be 6.17 in the new.
Yeah, 0.2 lascannon shots fewer to kill a dread.
WHAT A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE!
I think we are using different math. Here's what I posted earlier.
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.
Guiliman would only take 4 shots to down...just sayin.
All of this is irrelevant because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEW TO WOUND CHART IS YET!
calm down there, allcaps really is not required here.
Yes, we dont know what the new to-wound values will look like. However I dont recall any indication that S9 vs T7 will be any different than it is now. That absolutely could change and throw everything iff, but doesnt sound like it is thus far, and my concerns were raised in that light.
Desubot wrote: but it only ever took that 1 shot to kill that 1 dread. that one lucky shot that could ruin an entire game. replace dread with land raider.
its not possible for a single shot to kill a dread or landraider so im not really seeing a problem.
In our last team game, our opponent had Land Raider Crusader filled up with Wolf Guard. On our first turn, we directed 4 Lascannons and 1 Battlecannon on it. Last shot was from my own Land Raider, I threw two sixed and blew his LRC up.
He lost 250 points just like that. Game over? No, he recovered, changed his tactics and won. My own Land Raider survived nearly intact through the game, but it didn't help...
I was more likely to immobilize mine on a damn mole hill or ant hill. Stupid dangerous terrain.
HA that was always fun.
Not saying that you cant recover but one lucky shot could completely ruin a tank heavy lists day. even if it was just a weapons destroyed on say a earthshaker. it was effectively the same as killing it.
the new system makes it so tanks dont become useless after taking a few heavy hits. it takes an actual anti tank squad to put it out of commission which is how it should be rather than a bunch of jet bikes flying around shooting an ungodly amount of pellets at thing.s
When is the last time you saw an all lascannon dev squad? You know the one that costs 220 points if you want to bother keeping the heavy weapons alive? And you're going to bring 3 of them? That might make it a little hard to fight orks.
It was an example for the sake of illustration. Replace Devastators with Predator Annihilator or several tac combat squads any other similar stand in if you like. The ultimate point was that it is going to require dramatically fewer shots to kill a dread on average than was needed before, and they were already hurting there.
I agree that vehicles need a buff, but so did lascannons because nobody took them - before D weapons were everywhere, it was all S7 spam. That won't work in the new edition at all against dreads.
Here's a comparison of BS4 units. I'm going to assume that autocannons are doing D3 damage with -1 rend in 8th, as that seems highly likely (maybe even only 1 damage) for my comparison:
DREAD VS LASCANNON IN 7TH: Chance to glance: (2/3)(1/6) = 1/9
Chance to pen but not kill: (2/3)(1/2)(5/6) = 5/18
Chance to insta-kill: (2/3)(1/6)(1/6) = 1/18
Taking insta-kill to be worth 3 HP, and you're left with 5/9 average wounds per shot, for 5.4 average shots per kill.
DREAD VS LASCANNON IN 8TH: Chance to do damage: (2/3)(5/6)(5/6) = 25/54
With 8 wounds and expected roll of 3.5 on a D6, that gives ~4.94 shots per kill - around a 10% improvement in damage.
DREAD VS AUTOCANNON IN 7TH: Chance to do 1HP: (2/3)(1/3) = 2/9
Average shots to kill: 13.5
DREAD VS ASSUMED AUTOCANNON IN 8TH: Chance to do damage: (2/3)(1/2)(1/2) = 1/6
Average shots to kill, assuming 2 wounds average damage: 24.
That means that, assuming I'm roughly accurate, that S7 spam is almost half as effective (well, 55%ish). That's a MASSIVE boon for them. I would guess that this will be similar across the field - vehicles are weaker to AT guns but better vs all-rounder guns. That sounds like way better balance than we've had before. The final balance of the game will be determined on other factors including points costs, but I don't necessarily think slightly buffing lascannons, which nobody took, is bad; nor do I think heavily nerfing S7 autocannon/plasma spam, which everyone had to take, is bad either - in fact, I would argue this makes the game have greater tactical depth. Of course, the real test will be grav guns and meltas, but let's wait and see before drawing large conclusions.
EDIT: For fun, before anyone says the vehicle damage chart wasn't ridiculously broken in 5th, the Dread would take 27 shots from an autocannon and 9(!) lascannon shots if it wasn't in cover. That's why everyone used melta - it was the only thing worth a damn against armour, and made basically all armour values into a joke, needing only ~3.5 shots to kill the same Dread... let's not go back to either that level of anti-armour, or that level of durability.
the new system makes it so tanks dont become useless after taking a few heavy hits. it takes an actual anti tank squad to put it out of commission which is how it should be rather than a bunch of jet bikes flying around shooting an ungodly amount of pellets at thing.s
This is a nice observation. It will actually take heavy weaponry to effectively bring down heavy tanks and monsters. Will be nice to see some more variation in weaponry, instead of Str 6 spam.
I think we are using different math. Here's what I posted earlier.
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.
It is possible though that the Wound table is not the same anymore, so Lascannons wound T7 on 3+. This would make his calculation roughly correct.
We still don't know the whole picture (including how expensive Lascannons will be - is it 4th edition cost or 7th edition cost? How powerful will ACEQ be? and so on) However, it seems obvious that Vehicles are not much, if any, tougher in this edition compared to last. Which fits what they said earlier about things dying quickly.
the thing is toughness is also relative to cost, remember a wounds per shot number is useless in a vacuum, without cost you just use all D weapons and be done with it.
Okay so the Dreadnought can only survive 5 shots compared to when it used to survive 7, neat...those number don't mean anything yet, you have to add points before you can compare so right now 7 lascannons are 140pts so thats 20 points per shot so it's 140 pts to kill a dreadnought.
If in nuhammer 5 shots is 100 points the dreadnought got squishier, if it's 196 points it's exactly the same it it's 400pts it got quite a bit tougher.
TL;dr shots per dread doesn't mean anything, points of shot per dread would determine the actual durability.
I think we are using different math. Here's what I posted earlier.
Yup, I messed up and somehow assumed Dread have 10 wounds instead of 8.
My 7-e mathammer includes one-shot chance, that's why it's slightly lower than yours.
My Crimson Fists Lascannon Devastator Squad is probably moving back into my roster with this update. I am loving that they can actually bring big stuff down as intended.
Hmmm, I wonder if a lascannon does d6 wounds.... do you roll to save once agianst the hit and then apply the wounds if you fail, or count the wounds and then roll to save each individually?
davou wrote: Hmmm, I wonder if a lascannon does d6 wounds.... do you roll to save once agianst the hit and then apply the wounds if you fail, or count the wounds and then roll to save each individually?
IIRC, when wounds were in the rules, you rolled for them after a failed save. Probably would be better if it was the opposite. (roll for nb of wounds and save each of them)
davou wrote: Hmmm, I wonder if a lascannon does d6 wounds.... do you roll to save once agianst the hit and then apply the wounds if you fail, or count the wounds and then roll to save each individually?
Historically it's been save first, then damage. When otherwise it's usually been poor wording.....
davou wrote: Hmmm, I wonder if a lascannon does d6 wounds.... do you roll to save once agianst the hit and then apply the wounds if you fail, or count the wounds and then roll to save each individually?
If they follow AoS (which I would assume is likely), it's Roll to Hit -> Roll to Wound -> Roll to Save -> Apply damage (which if variable, is rolled at this point).
davou wrote: Hmmm, I wonder if a lascannon does d6 wounds.... do you roll to save once agianst the hit and then apply the wounds if you fail, or count the wounds and then roll to save each individually?
I would like to see the reverse of AoS's method in action. Roll to hit, roll to wound, for damage, then saves? Or roll to hit, roll for damage, roll to wound for each point of damage, then saves? There's a lot of ways to do it.
Also I'm not against a lascannon frying multiple small targets. Could be the beam goes through multiple targets, or causes an explosion and so on. Just as long as it doesn't work better than a machine gun type weapon at this sort of work then I'm ok with it.
On reflection, I should retract my earlier comments and instead start celebrating the fact that Imperial Guardsmen will get a save against boltguns.
I used to play Guard, and nothing annoyed me more than spending hours assembling and painting squads of Guardsmen, only to have to remove them from the gaming table 30 seconds later when a Space Marine disengaged the safety on his bolter.
Guiliman would only take 4 shots to down...just sayin.
All of this is irrelevant because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEW TO WOUND CHART IS YET!
We do have some information:-
Strength and Toughness are still with us, and still use an opposing value principle (so much higher Strength will still wound on 2+, low Strength will wound on a 6+), and these aren’t capped at 10 any more either.
To keep things consistent I would assume it's either doubles or triples will result in 2+/6+ effects. My guess it will be doubles to keep things consistent and matches with what we have currently.
davou wrote: Hmmm, I wonder if a lascannon does d6 wounds.... do you roll to save once agianst the hit and then apply the wounds if you fail, or count the wounds and then roll to save each individually?
If they follow AoS (which I would assume is likely), it's Roll to Hit -> Roll to Wound -> Roll to Save -> Apply damage (which if variable, is rolled at this point).
The implication from the wording is that this is the case as they state:-
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.
In 2nd that's how you dealt with stuff...i.e. multiple wounds. Your lascannon did 2D6 wounds, but a Bloodthirster had 10 wounds. So you "could" snipe the crap out of them if you were lucky, or it could take five friggin' shots. (for reference a Carnifex had 3+ armour on 2D6 with 10 wounds...it was effectively as hard to kill as a ten man terminator squad --- and even had a 9+ save on 2D6 vs. a lascannon or crack missile.) Sometimes you got lucky, sometimes you didn't.
The silly "doubling out" nonsense only appeared when people realized it was stupid for a character to take 3-4-5 lascannon shots to kill them in the game. Honestly randomized wounds is far more "cool" for story telling.
RE: The Multimelta being outshone by the Lascannon. That wasn't really true at all...they each served a purpose.
The Lascannon had 60" range, Strength 9, 2D6 wounds -6 save.
The Multi-Melta had 24" range (+1 at close range), Strength 8, 2D12 wounds, -4 save and a potentially better armour piercing value...using a friggin 2" template.
The Multi-Melta rarely showed up models because they weren't available as kit pieces for Marine devastators etc. They were present on some dreads and the landspeeder though and were brutally efficient at wiping out crowds of marines and heavy armour.
Allot wrote: So what is your guys guess for the first new faction? Kind of hinted to drop by the release of the new edition
Orks. They always drop Orks first and then cackle as they start to show their age right away and ultimately become the punching bag for the Imperium again in short order.
Yeah I think people are getting way too hung up on "new" meaning completely new and unseen before in the game. I don't think that's the case at all. I think we're simply seeing a model wave launch of an existing property in the game (or at least a heavy presence in the fluff).
Depends on what GW mean when they say a "new" faction. IMO the last time 40k got a totally new never before seen faction was the Tau. Every "new" faction since then has already existed in some form in the background and in some cases already had a minor table top presence.
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.
So will marines be getting a point drop or guard an increase to balance it out because if guard are suddenly shrugging of fire but still killing then same amount of marines then they need.a balanc8ng factor.
I guess guard could stay the same points but have a max squad size of 10 and no platoon bollocks.
Elbows wrote: In 2nd that's how you dealt with stuff...i.e. multiple wounds. Your lascannon did 2D6 wounds, but a Bloodthirster had 10 wounds. So you "could" snipe the crap out of them if you were lucky, or it could take five friggin' shots. (for reference a Carnifex had 3+ armour on 2D6 with 10 wounds...it was effectively as hard to kill as a ten man terminator squad --- and even had a 9+ save on 2D6 vs. a lascannon or crack missile.) Sometimes you got lucky, sometimes you didn't.
The silly "doubling out" nonsense only appeared when people realized it was stupid for a character to take 3-4-5 lascannon shots to kill them in the game. Honestly randomized wounds is far more "cool" for story telling.
RE: The Multimelta being outshone by the Lascannon. That wasn't really true at all...they each served a purpose.
The Lascannon had 60" range, Strength 9, 2D6 wounds -6 save.
The Multi-Melta had 24" range (+1 at close range), Strength 8, 2D12 wounds, -4 save and a potentially better armour piercing value...using a friggin 2" template.
The Multi-Melta rarely showed up models because they weren't available as kit pieces for Marine devastators etc. They were present on some dreads and the landspeeder though and were brutally efficient at wiping out crowds of marines and heavy armour.
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.
So will marines be getting a point drop or guard an increase to balance it out because if guard are suddenly shrugging of fire but still killing then same amount of marines then they need.a balanc8ng factor.
I guess guard could stay the same points but have a max squad size of 10 and no platoon bollocks.
No, they are radically changing every aspect of the game but leaving points exactly the same forever.
EDIT: For fun, before anyone says the vehicle damage chart wasn't ridiculously broken in 5th, the Dread would take 27 shots from an autocannon and 9(!) lascannon shots if it wasn't in cover. That's why everyone used melta - it was the only thing worth a damn against armour, and made basically all armour values into a joke, needing only ~3.5 shots to kill the same Dread... let's not go back to either that level of anti-armour, or that level of durability.
However, the point there is that people moan how one-shot kill ruins vehicle lists, yet in 5th edition chance for 1-shot kill was much higher than in 6th or 7th. And it's not like Autocannons were bad in 5th edition - Hydras and Lootas were very much awesome in 5th.
Also, luck tends to even up over the game: I played Tau during 5th edition (Golden Age of Railgun!) and number of times I blew up or immobilized a big vehicle on first shot, only to see my luck turn and roll Shakes and Weapon Destroyed rest of the game and get rolled. It's only in small points games where a player might have just 1 tank where this was an issue.
And really, is it really that much different in 8th? Roll 6 for Lascannon, Dread has 2 wounds left. Most probably it is now either Immobilized or otherwise has its combat capability seriously reduced. Sure it didn't die, but it's not gonna be much use anymore, and can be finished off with Mid or Low strength shooting which in 7th wouldn't have done anything to it. So I am not convinced things actually changed here in practical terms. May be different for Land Raiders which probably has 12 Wounds.
EDIT: For fun, before anyone says the vehicle damage chart wasn't ridiculously broken in 5th, the Dread would take 27 shots from an autocannon and 9(!) lascannon shots if it wasn't in cover. That's why everyone used melta - it was the only thing worth a damn against armour, and made basically all armour values into a joke, needing only ~3.5 shots to kill the same Dread... let's not go back to either that level of anti-armour, or that level of durability.
However, the point there is that people moan how one-shot kill ruins vehicle lists, yet in 5th edition chance for 1-shot kill was much higher than in 6th or 7th. And it's not like Autocannons were bad in 5th edition - Hydras and Lootas were very much awesome in 5th.
Also, luck tends to even up over the game: I played Tau during 5th edition (Golden Age of Railgun!) and number of times I blew up or immobilized a big vehicle on first shot, only to see my luck turn and roll Shakes and Weapon Destroyed rest of the game and get rolled. It's only in small points games where a player might have just 1 tank where this was an issue.
And really, is it really that much different in 8th? Roll 6 for Lascannon, Dread has 2 wounds left. Most probably it is now either Immobilized or otherwise has its combat capability seriously reduced. Sure it didn't die, but it's not gonna be much use anymore, and can be finished off with Mid or Low strength shooting which in 7th wouldn't have done anything to it. So I am not convinced things actually changed here in practical terms. May be different for Land Raiders which probably has 12 Wounds.
What do you consider 'mid strength'? S6 and S7 shooting was why dreads suck in 7th, not Lascannons. Lascannons were actually a gak way of dealing with dread, melta works much better, and scatter lasers fry em up extra crispy.
From playing AoS the damage part of the profile is the best thing that happened. Now railguns won't just plink off one wound and characters who have long sweeping attacks in CC won't just hit one guy.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On reflection, I should retract my earlier comments and instead start celebrating the fact that Imperial Guardsmen will get a save against boltguns.
I used to play Guard, and nothing annoyed me more than spending hours assembling and painting squads of Guardsmen, only to have to remove them from the gaming table 30 seconds later when a Space Marine disengaged the safety on his bolter.
Dakka, I'm sorry.
I don't wanna sound rude, but there's not really any way to say this without it being at least a little bit sharp.
If you're criticisms of the game are based on how they will directly effect the efficacy models you choose to field, then your input on game design is worth less than nothing.
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.
Exactly how I am feeling at the moment. Very exciting times!!
You know what's best about all of this? Every unit is probably going to be worth taking to some degree. There's so many units now that are so useless they're worthless. The IG codex is full of them. Not anymore.
Really liked those weapon stats, one thing I was worried about was them being too free with ASM's, but if a bolter doesnt get one and we leave it to bigger weapons thats excellent.
I also can't believe people are complaining that anti-tank weapons are finally good again at their intended purpose without being great at anti infantry as well (well I can, it's just rather sad). I may finally be able to take my triple lance Ravager again and not feel sad about it.
Future War Cultist wrote: You know what's best about all of this? Every unit is probably going to be worth taking to some degree. There's so many units now that are so useless they're worthless. The IG codex is full of them. Not anymore.
That's a hell of an asusumption to make
Automatically Appended Next Post:
buddha wrote: From playing AoS the damage part of the profile is the best thing that happened. Now railguns won't just plink off one wound and characters who have long sweeping attacks in CC won't just hit one guy.
Not sure if I undertand your post, but damage is not resolved as it is in AOS (thanks god)
Future War Cultist wrote: You know what's best about all of this? Every unit is probably going to be worth taking to some degree. There's so many units now that are so useless they're worthless. The IG codex is full of them. Not anymore.
Not so fast, hoss. Points are still a thing sadly.
When we only had Open Play for AoS, this was the attitude everyone tended to have. "Wow, these units I haven't used since whenever are finally getting used again! Hooray!".
Then points and Matched Play came back and poof, we're basically back to the same metas as before just with different units.
Future War Cultist wrote: You know what's best about all of this? Every unit is probably going to be worth taking to some degree. There's so many units now that are so useless they're worthless. The IG codex is full of them. Not anymore.
Not so fast, hoss.
Points are still a thing sadly.
Their stated goal is still to make everything useful.
Shooting is problematic in AoS, currently, yes. But that doesn't mean they aren't doing something about it.
Not so fast, hoss.
Points are still a thing sadly.
When we only had Open Play for AoS, this was the attitude everyone tended to have. "Wow, these units I haven't used since whenever are finally getting used again! Hooray!".
Then points and Matched Play came back and poof, we're basically back to the same metas as before just with different units.
But by making the points separate from the datasheets, with plans to update annually, metas can change. It won't be perfect, but it can be better.
The new "power level" points system is also a plus in this direction, as it lets you take things you want without having to worry about whether you're spending optimally.
Future War Cultist wrote: You know what's best about all of this? Every unit is probably going to be worth taking to some degree. There's so many units now that are so useless they're worthless. The IG codex is full of them. Not anymore.
Not so fast, hoss.
Points are still a thing sadly.
Their stated goal is still to make everything useful.
Shooting is problematic in AoS, currently, yes. But that doesn't mean they aren't doing something about it.
I don't think you're understanding the reason I posted that comment.
When "Matched Play" becomes the default(it will, because heavens forbid you actually discuss things for a few flipping minutes or do something other than just build a list of the high end stuff that you already had)--it means we're literally right back where we started with points efficiency being the name of the game.
Not so fast, hoss.
Points are still a thing sadly.
When we only had Open Play for AoS, this was the attitude everyone tended to have. "Wow, these units I haven't used since whenever are finally getting used again! Hooray!".
Then points and Matched Play came back and poof, we're basically back to the same metas as before just with different units.
But by making the points separate from the datasheets, with plans to update annually, metas can change. It won't be perfect, but it can be better.
Points being separate from datasheets won't do diddly if they still have points to begin with.
That is, and always will be, my beef with Matched Play. Bringing points back, officially, was a mistake in my mind.
The new "power level" points system is also a plus in this direction, as it lets you take things you want without having to worry about whether you're spending optimally.
The way it's been stated, "power level" is tied only to Narrative play.
I might be making an assumption but it does seem to be their intended goal judging by what they said and what they're doing.
I'm sorry I said it though because of course some people here are going to start gurning about it. They're gurning about everything else so why not that too.
Future War Cultist wrote: You know what's best about all of this? Every unit is probably going to be worth taking to some degree. There's so many units now that are so useless they're worthless. The IG codex is full of them. Not anymore.
Not so fast, hoss.
Points are still a thing sadly.
To a certain extent. Narrative play is a thing as well. Even then, if they really did playtest every unit in the game and balanced the points based on experience, the points might line up better than they used to. I don't have high hopes, but if I can field my Lascannon Devastators, Tactical Squads in Rhinos, and Dreadnoughts without feeling I made a huge sacrifice in effectiveness, isn't that a good thing?
On a side note, I asked Pete if Pistols were going to be priced appropriately and he said he hoped so. I am really hoping for a good reason to run Plasma Pistols again. The Blood Angels Tactical Squad has a really cool winged PP. I want to run an Assault Squad with three of them (though Flamers are really good now, enough so that my Crimson Fists will probably show up with a Squad of Assault Marines for the first time in years). Heck, I want a reason to put a melee weapon on a Tactical Sergeant again. We might actually be in a place where that could be a thing.
I'd ride off into the sunset, but they don't sell Rough Riders anymore...
I should clarify:
I hope they get rules, but in the same way that "legacy" stuff from WHFB got them. The rules are there if you have them or want to convert them; but they're not really around in any meaningful way for the time being.
It leaves the door open to bring the stuff back(the Tomb Kings, for example, actually made an appearance early on in the AoS fluff with Nagash having to deal with rebels within the Realm of Death that rode chariots and had elaborate headdresses) if they figure a way they want to do it.
Future War Cultist wrote: I might be making an assumption but it does seem to be their intended goal judging by what they said and what they're doing.
I'm sorry I said it though because of course some people here are going to start gurning about it. They're gurning about everything else so why not that too.
and you think that making some unit useless was once their intention ? Being irrationally over excited and optimistic is as bad ad the opposite
Future War Cultist wrote: I might be making an assumption but it does seem to be their intended goal judging by what they said and what they're doing.
I'm sorry I said it though because of course some people here are going to start gurning about it. They're gurning about everything else so why not that too.
and you think that making some unit useless was once their intention ? Being irrationally over excited and optimistic is as bad ad the opposite
That's not what he was saying at all. He didn't say units were deliberately made useless, nor that anyone intended that. It's not untrue that many options are far from optimal whereas others are auto-takes in most Codexes. A shakeup of that is welcome, and tends to happen with a new edition anyway, as new rules change how things interact. The difference this time is the ground-up rework and the 'everything can hurt everything' approach that will hopefully stop some things being invalidated before they're fielded. Add in the different way weapons can cause multiple wounds and many things could get taken out of the dusty cabinet for a new spin on the tabletop...
s7 -2? lol ork nobs in eavy armour shaking off plasma bolts
Although thematically it might not make sense i think the rumour is cover ups your AS so isn't as reliable for hordes camping but they are better in the open vs small arms. Kinda promotes more movement and more dynamic games than current objective camping in ruins.
The whole vibe of this release i'm getting is attrition and tactics and movement. Moving things to a middle ground, look at 40k now and you have so much overkill e.g. this wipes you out right away or your stuff has zero chance agains this... it now seems a lot more measured like a rainbow instead of black grey and white.
On another note, i knew there was a reason they made that Thousand sons box with all those flamers! they'll prob be -1
Future War Cultist wrote: I might be making an assumption but it does seem to be their intended goal judging by what they said and what they're doing.
I'm sorry I said it though because of course some people here are going to start gurning about it. They're gurning about everything else so why not that too.
and you think that making some unit useless was once their intention ? Being irrationally over excited and optimistic is as bad ad the opposite
That's not what he was saying at all. He didn't say units were deliberately made useless, nor that anyone intended that. It's not untrue that many options are far from optimal whereas others are auto-takes in most Codexes. A shakeup of that is welcome, and tends to happen with a new edition anyway, as new rules change how things interact. The difference this time is the ground-up rework and the 'everything can hurt everything' approach that will hopefully stop some things being invalidated before they're fielded. Add in the different way weapons can cause multiple wounds and many things could get taken out of the dusty cabinet for a new spin on the tabletop...
Yet, that doesn't mean at all that no unit will be useless, since even if anything can hurt anything, some units will still be useless if other units can pour more damage for the same point cost. At this point, even thinking that the game will be more balanced based on only a few phrases made by the developpers (like they would say that the game isn't balanced) is magical thinking at his best. Don't get me wrong, i'm hoping it is the case. But I'll wait for the actual rules before popping the champagne
Not once did I say that GW set out to make units useless. Some just became useless due to changes in rules over the years or whatever. And with this complete rebuild from top to bottom everything can be remade on an equal footing. Which is what they seem to be aiming for.
streetsamurai wrote: But I'll wait for the actual rules before popping the champagne
Don't let it stop ya snarkin' tho, ya hear? ;-)
not everyone that isn't as naive as you are is snarking ya know. In fact, I,ve said numerous times that ,m pretty optimistic about this new edition. Doesn't means that i'll act like it's the best thing ever, even if we barely have any info on it.
Had a thought on Inv saves too. I expect they are gone and will be replaced for stuff like daemons who only had an inv save with an armour save that cannot be modified.
Latro_ wrote: Had a thought on Inv saves too. I expect they are gone and will be replaced for stuff like daemons who only had an inv save with an armour save that cannot be modified.
I'd doubt if. Field saves have been invulnerable since time began. Doubt that would change as the fluff-tech behind them hasn't.
I wonder if invulnerable saves could simply be replaced by better saves. If bloodletters for example had a 3+ despite being naked then they'll be tough without needing extra rules.
It just doesn't fit the powerfield justification. It would render the Refractor and Conversion fields utterly useless against weapons they'd previously defended against. Which would be super odd.
Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.
kestral wrote: Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.
I guess it saves a whole bunch of exceptions, which was the bane of 7th. And exceptions to exceptions. And exceptions to... etc.
One thing to consider is that the to wound table could be considerably different. For example, you might need to double the strength before they need a 6+ to wound. That would change things quite a bit. How would depend on how the rest of the game is designed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It would also fit with "everything can kill everything". Done right I might approve if it makes differences in S and T a bit more subtle.
kestral wrote: Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.
I guess it saves a whole bunch of exceptions, which was the bane of 7th. And exceptions to exceptions. And exceptions to... etc.
The exceptions to the exceptions was bad game design, not an inherent fault of the basic rules.
kestral wrote: Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.
its entirly possible it will be listed under flamer special rules in the weapon section of the book.
old D weapons might also get special rules stating xyz cant be taken against it.
kestral wrote: One thing to consider is that the to wound table could be considerably different. For example, you might need to double the strength before they need a 6+ to wound. That would change things quite a bit. How would depend on how the rest of the game is designed.
They might have requirements like "roll a 6, then you need to roll again a 4+ to wound" depending on how high that goes or they draw the line at a "no effect".
rollawaythestone wrote: Invulns, if they still exist, will likely be something like "This model always saves on at least a 5+" or something.
They were called unmodifiable saves back in the day. That's exactly how they will work still. They won't effect damage ability, just won't be modified. I am stating that as in they won't be modified negatively...
kestral wrote: Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.
They may have and just havent shown it yet, that was the only weapon that had a special effect, in previous editions, out of the 3 shown, so they may just not have covered those special rules yet.
Caught up on the last 12 pages since I went to bed!!
I am loving every change, glad this is being built from the ground up.
Find it hilarious people are complaining about the weapons profiles when we still haven't seen most of the new edition. Even funnier that they are comparing the weapons in the current 7th edition environment!
kestral wrote: Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.
If cover is a - to hit and not a + to armour then its already covered.
However, the point there is that people moan how one-shot kill ruins vehicle lists, yet in 5th edition chance for 1-shot kill was much higher than in 6th or 7th. And it's not like Autocannons were bad in 5th edition - Hydras and Lootas were very much awesome in 5th.
Also, luck tends to even up over the game: I played Tau during 5th edition (Golden Age of Railgun!) and number of times I blew up or immobilized a big vehicle on first shot, only to see my luck turn and roll Shakes and Weapon Destroyed rest of the game and get rolled. It's only in small points games where a player might have just 1 tank where this was an issue.
And really, is it really that much different in 8th? Roll 6 for Lascannon, Dread has 2 wounds left. Most probably it is now either Immobilized or otherwise has its combat capability seriously reduced. Sure it didn't die, but it's not gonna be much use anymore, and can be finished off with Mid or Low strength shooting which in 7th wouldn't have done anything to it. So I am not convinced things actually changed here in practical terms. May be different for Land Raiders which probably has 12 Wounds.
What do you consider 'mid strength'? S6 and S7 shooting was why dreads suck in 7th, not Lascannons. Lascannons were actually a gak way of dealing with dread, melta works much better, and scatter lasers fry em up extra crispy.
You did not read very well, that was the very point I was making. People complain about vehicles getting one-shotted, but that was not a serious balance issue. It was the Hull Points which made vehicles weak in 6th/7th edition.
6th Edition Vehicle rules would have been fine if all the Vehicles were given 1 more Hull point. And of course had not written silly superdurable MC's which should have had vehicle rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: That T7 Dread ain't looking so hot now. Should'a been T8.
And Marines can save against Lascannons. Why?
Maybe it is just indirectly simulating that a Marine is harder to hit than huge big tank...
I went back to Age of Sigmar release history. The release date was announced around June 3rd 2015, then pre-orders didn't happen until a month later: July 4th.
So I think we'll see 8th edition in late May, despite the rumors about vacation freeze in June.
kestral wrote: Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.
If cover is a - to hit and not a + to armour then its already covered.
Ooh...that would be quite interesting, but then minus to hit affects some armies more than others. I guess that is the case no matter how you cut it. I can't to see this whole thing unfold.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
axisofentropy wrote: I went back to Age of Sigmar release history. The release date was announced around June 3rd 2015, then pre-orders didn't happen until a month later: July 4th.
So I think we'll see 8th edition in late May, despite the rumors about vacation freeze in June.
Vacation freeze will be when the actual product is out so 2-3 weeks prior to that will be preorders. Late May seems feasible.
You did not read very well, that was the very point I was making. People complain about vehicles getting one-shotted, but that was not a serious balance issue. It was the Hull Points which made vehicles weak in 6th/7th edition.
6th Edition Vehicle rules would have been fine if all the Vehicles were given 1 more Hull point. And of course had not written silly superdurable MC's which should have had vehicle rules.
If vehicles just had the 7th damage table and no hull points AV14 would be practically king of the game. Especially against armies with no AP1 or even little AP2.
Points being separate from datasheets won't do diddly if they still have points to begin with.
That is, and always will be, my beef with Matched Play. Bringing points back, officially, was a mistake in my mind.
I'm not a fan of points either, but let's be honest with ourselves. Ours is a minority opinion. Points were coming back.
Anyhow, why the concern about what the points meta is if you're so against points? Open and Narrative are valid ways to play as well. The points meta is only as prevalent as it is because that's tacitly been the only way to play up until now.
I personally look forward to happily ignoring any talk of points come 8th.
I can't see them bothering with Melta bombs or indeed many grenades unless a special unit has them as primary weapons - I assume each unit will have a primary shooting weapon and then a coupe of special or heavy weapons and then Close combat weapons - doing much more would just be complicated.
Haywire will just be another gun - maybe with a special bonus against vehicles - maybe not.
I'm just wondering how Gauss will work, maybe a To Wound roll of 6 does D3 damage to vehicles?
Considering in the background gauss is meant to be good against all armour, my guess is a roll of six gives an additional AP -1 to the gun or something simple like that. It'd also go a way towards distinguishing heavy gauss cannons from lascannons too, and would be strong, yet reasonably fair for an entire army to have.
It's possible that it'll just add damage on 6's but I'd have thought that's a little too strong generally.
I'm still most interested in what happens to melta/armourbane weapons. I'm sort of hoping 2d6 penetration goes the way of the dodo, but I somehow doubt it...
axisofentropy wrote: I went back to Age of Sigmar release history. The release date was announced around June 3rd 2015, then pre-orders didn't happen until a month later: July 4th.
So I think we'll see 8th edition in late May, despite the rumors about vacation freeze in June.
Vacation freeze will be when the actual product is out so 2-3 weeks prior to that will be preorders. Late May seems feasible.
that's interesting. what are you basing this upon? Age of Sigmar arrived only a week after pre-orders.
axisofentropy wrote: I went back to Age of Sigmar release history. The release date was announced around June 3rd 2015, then pre-orders didn't happen until a month later: July 4th.
So I think we'll see 8th edition in late May, despite the rumors about vacation freeze in June.
Vacation freeze will be when the actual product is out so 2-3 weeks prior to that will be preorders. Late May seems feasible.
that's interesting. what are you basing this upon? Age of Sigmar arrived only a week after pre-orders.
40K is a bigger fish. Last I remember it was at least a 2 week pre-order period.
My guess for Melta is that it will do 1d6 Wounds and an extra d6 wounds at half range. Melta Bombs will likely just do 2d6 against stuff with the Vehicle or Monster keyword (they said keywords would matter).
I'm just wondering how Gauss will work, maybe a To Wound roll of 6 does D3 damage to vehicles?
Considering in the background gauss is meant to be good against all armour, my guess is a roll of six gives an additional AP -1 to the gun or something simple like that. It'd also go a way towards distinguishing heavy gauss cannons from lascannons too, and would be strong, yet reasonably fair for an entire army to have.
It's possible that it'll just add damage on 6's but I'd have thought that's a little too strong generally.
I'm still most interested in what happens to melta/armourbane weapons. I'm sort of hoping 2d6 penetration goes the way of the dodo, but I somehow doubt it...
Daedalus81 wrote: 40K is a bigger fish. Last I remember it was at least a 2 week pre-order period.
Looking back at the old White Dwarf Weekly's, 7th edition was announced on 10 May 2014, went on preorder 17 May 2014 and was released 24 May 2014.
good info thanks!
I do think a 2 week pre-order is possible, but a little less likely than one week. If I had to bet, I think we'll have the new books before June, maybe May 26th? No, I can't explain the GW vacation rumor so I could be wrong!
Everyone play this game! It's more fun than talking about lasgun physics! What date do you think the release will happen?
When it comes to Gauss weapons, could it be as simple as on a roll of 6 to wound, the gauss weapon does one more damage than normal? that would make them better against armor, but for basic infantry it wouldn't matter.
cuda1179 wrote: When it comes to Gauss weapons, could it be as simple as on a roll of 6 to wound, the gauss weapon does one more damage than normal? that would make them better against armor, but for basic infantry it wouldn't matter.
I think it will be in the next 3 weeks, I have not studied GWs release patterns nor am I a pundit, but the cats out of the bag now and no one's buying anything untill we know what's going on with our armies.
I can't see GW taking this kind of for any extended period of time.
Daedalus81 wrote: It has to be June at the latest. They're doing daily info dumps until release, which is going to be quite a bit if it's July...well over 60 days.
Have to agree, unless they decide to take itsy bitsy bits here and there and show us.
But as it is, they're revealing fairly large portions of the game in a way. Betting on Psychic stuff before the week is out.
Megaknob wrote: I think it will be in the next 3 weeks, I have not studied GWs release patterns nor am I a pundit, but the cats out of the bag now and no one's buying anything untill we know what's going on with our armies.
I can't see GW taking this kind of for any extended period of time.
I agree, everyone in my gaming group has put all new purchases and army planning on hold until we see where the rules are going.
If that's where everything is going writ large, that'll probably hurt sales a little.
Megaknob wrote: I think it will be in the next 3 weeks, I have not studied GWs release patterns nor am I a pundit, but the cats out of the bag now and no one's buying anything untill we know what's going on with our armies.
I can't see GW taking this kind of for any extended period of time.
I agree, everyone in my gaming group has put all new purchases and army planning on hold until we see where the rules are going.
If that's where everything is going writ large, that'll probably hurt sales a little.
*Looks at new Gorkanaunt on desk*
Probably the smart thing
Megaknob wrote: I think it will be in the next 3 weeks, I have not studied GWs release patterns nor am I a pundit, but the cats out of the bag now and no one's buying anything untill we know what's going on with our armies.
I can't see GW taking this kind of for any extended period of time.
I agree, everyone in my gaming group has put all new purchases and army planning on hold until we see where the rules are going.
If that's where everything is going writ large, that'll probably hurt sales a little.
this, sales are going to slump something fierce until the new edition drops...except for the big bump the announcement probably gave.
'Ooh new edition? Well I guess I can buy a toxicrene then, after all it might be good now...'
We may not be buying, but they have us thinking and chatting about it every single day until then.
The S&T table is bugging me, because if it exists it will be much bigger and have very little differentiation with the current logic. But I can't think of some other easily digested logic that would allow them to spread out and also does not result in obscene rolls. Maybe that isn't really necessary though...I want more info!
Daedalus81 wrote: We may not be buying, but they have us thinking and chatting about it every single day until then.
The S&T table is bugging me, because if it exists it will be much bigger and have very little differentiation with the current logic. But I can't think of some other easily digested logic that would allow them to spread out and also does not result in obscene rolls. Maybe that isn't really necessary though...I want more info!
You've never really needed the S/T table, it's just that 7th didn't explain the logic behind it.
Equal is 4+, one higher is 5+ two higher 6+ same progression for lower.
I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the logic with the expansion and multiple damage though to be honest? There's potential for slightly more granularity here.
I guess it isn't impossible it could have a BS-style re-roll mechanic if the disparity is greater, e.g. 3x SvT then re-roll 1s and successfully wound on 6s or something.
The S&T table might not exist. It could just be spelled out. Toughness minus Strength, plus 4 equals the dice roll you need to wound. 1 always fails, 6 always succeeds.
cuda1179 wrote: When it comes to Gauss weapons, could it be as simple as on a roll of 6 to wound, the gauss weapon does one more damage than normal? that would make them better against armor, but for basic infantry it wouldn't matter.
Works for me.
Or cause its damage characteristic to be higher versus units with the 'vehicle' key-word.
Apologies if this has already been shared but Pete Foley has said on twitter that due to the large amount of questions, they will do a second live FAQ.
So far I'm liking many of the proposed rule changes. Streamlines the game without dumbing it down to much. I wonder what kind of over watch mechanic will get ported over, if any? I'm interested to see new melee weapon profiles too.
cuda1179 wrote: The S&T table might not exist. It could just be spelled out. Toughness minus Strength, plus 4 equals the dice roll you need to wound. 1 always fails, 6 always succeeds.
Possible, but as we could conceivably have a S15 weapon hitting a T3 target, making it no more effective than a S5 one seems lacking. Or even S15 vs S10 at T8 targets.
Chikout wrote: Apologies if this has already been shared but Pete Foley has said on twitter that due to the large amount of questions, they will do a second live FAQ.
cuda1179 wrote: The S&T table might not exist. It could just be spelled out. Toughness minus Strength, plus 4 equals the dice roll you need to wound. 1 always fails, 6 always succeeds.
Possible, but as we could conceivably have a S15 weapon hitting a T3 target, making it no more effective than a S5 one seems lacking. Or even S15 vs S10 at T8 targets.
Well, taking a 12-gauge to my forehead won't make me any less dead than taking a tactical nuke to the forehead.
cuda1179 wrote: The S&T table might not exist. It could just be spelled out. Toughness minus Strength, plus 4 equals the dice roll you need to wound. 1 always fails, 6 always succeeds.
Possible, but as we could conceivably have a S15 weapon hitting a T3 target, making it no more effective than a S5 one seems lacking. Or even S15 vs S10 at T8 targets.
Such weapons exist to fight big, tough things so I expect they'll rarely be directed at much weaker stuff.
cuda1179 wrote: The S&T table might not exist. It could just be spelled out. Toughness minus Strength, plus 4 equals the dice roll you need to wound. 1 always fails, 6 always succeeds.
Possible, but as we could conceivably have a S15 weapon hitting a T3 target, making it no more effective than a S5 one seems lacking. Or even S15 vs S10 at T8 targets.
They could easily make weapons that beat your toughness by more then a set amount an autowound. But, really, dead is dead - there comes a point where any further increase in the strength of the attack is redundant.
While the S15 weapon isn't necessarily going to be any better at killing a T3 target than a S5 one, it is going to be substantially better at killing a T14 target.
For all that I don't like, it sounds better than 7th ed, and it is cheap/free. That is a win, just might not be as big a win for me as I'd hoped if they don't leave in many of the Quasi Realistic elements I liked about the game.
Faster play is almost certainly a win. Eliminating random powers and warlord traits would be a good start, though they don't seem to have reduced the number of dice rolls, so I'm not sure where the time savings are going to come from.
For Psychic/Magic I'd say the days of the strait Ld test for you one or two fixed powers were the most playable and is the most likely. One of Fantasy Battle's editions with dice pools worked pretty well if I remember correctly, although many of the dice pool rules sucked, and it eats a lot of time if you have to do it on both player's turns.
cuda1179 wrote: The S&T table might not exist. It could just be spelled out. Toughness minus Strength, plus 4 equals the dice roll you need to wound. 1 always fails, 6 always succeeds.
In all honesty, there are a lot of potential ways to do it. Most likely the one you proposed will be the one we see (I mean, it isn't like a S10 weapon is any more effective at killing a T3 target than a T4 target, so the bottom is already running on a flattened scale).
This will have some odd effects at the sub-Knight scale if it occurs (a lasgun is as effective at hurting a dread as a boltgun) but in the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge deal in terms of results (because both are equally ineffective at the task). But when you use d6's, abstraction of results is basically unavoidable.
That said, the 7+ mechanic from BS would work to widen the table a bit at the far end (though it is a wee-bit more complicated which is why I'm increasingly not expecting it).
But there are still a lot of unknowns here. Either way, I'm interested to see how the table has changed, it's probably one of the biggest shakeups to 40k since... well a long damn time.
It's funny how people bitched and moaned about the previous GW policy of keeping tight-lipped and then just dropping something out of the blue. Then commenting that they aren't dropping a dime because they have been told that a new release is coming out soon.
Chikout wrote: Apologies if this has already been shared but Pete Foley has said on twitter that due to the large amount of questions, they will do a second live FAQ.
So are bolters going to differ from army to army? From unit to unit? Those are the Flamer rules, but are they the Flamer rules, or the Adeptus Astartes Tactical Squad Flamer rules? Is a unit going to have a Flamer that's called a Flamer, but it does D6+1 hits because of some bespoke rule the unit has?
The less you centralise (like an armoury), the more things you have with the same name but different rules.
Kanluwen wrote: Bringing points back, officially, was a mistake in my mind.
An absurd criticism because there is a specific mode of play (two actually, IIRC) where you don't have to use them. The points are there for people who want to use them. They are optional.
Hollow wrote: It's funny how people bitched and moaned about the previous GW policy of keeping tight-lipped and then just dropping something out of the blue. Then commenting that they aren't dropping a dime because they have been told that a new release is coming out soon.
What's funny about that? Not wanting to waste money on something that may or may not turn out to be useless in a short amount of time is precisely one of the reasons people objected to the previous release secrecy.
One think I was thinking was that if they want to speed up play, they should get rid of rerolls. Since we are going from the ground up, lets remove them. They certainly take more time, and you already have to roll 3 times to try and hit, wound, and save. As each of those could be rerolled, that is easily 6 rolls per attack. So if they just get rid of rerolls I think that would be a good idea.
For example: Twin-Linked. +1 to hit
Fell No Pain +1 to save
Etc.
Another thing I think would speed things up is to get rid of the psychic phase (says the Tau player). Just make Psychic powers like weapons or special keywords that take effect during either movement or combat. Witchfire powers are pretty easy to do that with. I would assume other things would work too. I would further love it if it is one power per phase so you can't rack up crazy psyker combos. But that could just be me...
Another thought I had would be to make a major change and just give every model two actions. An action could be move, fire, etc. (Do we really need any full phase type actions besides move and fire?) So if you want to run, you take two move actions on your turn with that model. If you want to lay down some serious fire, take two fire action. Maybe add a close assault action or a psychic action too.
Just some thoughts about ground up changes they could make. I hope the game plays as fast as they claim. I was reading old battle reports and 1,000 point games would take 3 hours for a causal player like me. Ugh.
Thing is, removing rerolls in a D6 system removes just about the only tool that allows jumps of less than 16%.
For that reason, they're probably staying. Less frequent and with greater limitation on scores (no 2+ re rolls) would be great, but no rerolls is too restrictive.
For Strength vs. Toughness, maybe they could be taking a hint from LOTR rules? (The only GW game I played, fwiw)
That table had strength from something like 1 - 20 and defence from 1 - 20. For each intersection, a roll to wound was specified and expanded out for the very most edge cases.
For example, a Strength 3 attack against defense 20 could be 6/6, requiring two rolls of a 6 to wound.
In this way, every weapon can damage everything, but the odds are much better spread out.
Hollow wrote: It's funny how people bitched and moaned about the previous GW policy of keeping tight-lipped and then just dropping something out of the blue. Then commenting that they aren't dropping a dime because they have been told that a new release is coming out soon.
What's funny about that? Not wanting to waste money on something that may or may not turn out to be useless in a short amount of time is precisely one of the reasons people objected to the previous release secrecy.
Also it's a little bit different, releasing information like this isn't reducing demand, it's penning it up. They'll see a huge explosion of demand as soon as 8th drops because of the hype they've generated, the issue is balancing it so that the purchase gained through hype are mroe than the purchases lost to 'wait and see'
I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.
vadersson wrote: One think I was thinking was that if they want to speed up play, they should get rid of rerolls. Since we are going from the ground up, lets remove them. They certainly take more time, and you already have to roll 3 times to try and hit, wound, and save. As each of those could be rerolled, that is easily 6 rolls per attack. So if they just get rid of rerolls I think that would be a good idea.
It's a nice thought, and by all means getting a re-roll on every roll should be rare as .
But when you're working with the venerable d6, re-rolls (and layered rolls like shooting and melee) are what are required to create probabilities that aren't all %16.67 apart. Remove to many rolls and even a handful of re-rolls and suddenly things get swingy fast (this was part of the problem with everything and its mum ignoring low-end armour saves in old editions).
So by all means, limit re-rolls, but the mechanic is far too useful in a d6-based game to excise completely. Like many things, moderation is key. There is only so much flat modifiers can do (and overdoing that leads to its own problems).
Hollow wrote: I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.
Really?
You don't see how the efficacy of a miniature in game dropping in an edition change might make someone who considered themselves a gamer first feel they'd rather bought something else?
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is, removing rerolls in a D6 system removes just about the only tool that allows jumps of less than 16%.
For that reason, they're probably staying. Less frequent and with greater limitation on scores (no 2+ re rolls) would be great, but no rerolls is too restrictive.
This.
I have always believed that in a rule system that has the D6 as the random number generator, there are 3 approaches to help build flavour, and also help the bell curve of averages. Re-rolls, Modifiers, and Weight of numbers. How these are applied is a way to strengthen an armies feel, are they limited elite troops with the best gear, re-rolls. Are they highly skilled but more numerous troops modifiers. Are they sub par troops who just use weight of numbers.
I am sure that all 3 types will remain in 8th edition.
Hollow wrote: I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.
If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.
Hollow wrote: I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.
If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.
It's not really all that complicated.
Hmmm... I'm my "How to forge the Narrative in 100 easy steps by Tom Kirby™" theres nothing about that thing you call... gaming piece...
I think you are confussed, is Games Workshop's Miniature Exposition the Wargame™ we are talking about here!
Hollow wrote: I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.
If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.
It's not really all that complicated.
While this is very true, it does highlight how the rules played a big part in the way models with options were built. For example I adore the Carnifex with 2 sets of Scything Talons. In the current rules set, that model is a joke, where as one with 2 sets of Twin-Linked Devourers is a solid option!
If the rules over shadow how I construct my models for the purpose of enjoying the game, the rules need to change, which thankful they are!
I understand the concept. As you said, it's not that complicated. I've just never understood why people who are consumed by balance and gaming even play Warhammer. It's obviously not a game that could ever be properly balanced.
Hollow wrote: I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.
If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.
It's not really all that complicated.
Hell, it even makes modelling miniatures that are already owned into a gamble. I am asking myself with everything I have "What can I build that won't possibly be invalidated as a legitimate option in the new rules?". So far, that has been a Vindicator and two Drop Pods. I might make the bodies of many of my Skitarii walkers (Donkeytank and Ironstriders), but I will have to freeze once the weapon options would go on. I have two Stalker tanks to build as well, so I guess I won't be gluing their tops on in case the Hunter suddenly outclasses them significantly. But infantry building is pretty well completely off the table for the time being. And that really stinks because those are the things I actually want to work on right now. I could build my two Venerable Dreadnoughts since all their weapon options short of the Flamer and Storm Bolter pop on and off anyway. I might actually field them now too.
Hollow wrote: I understand the concept. As you said, it's not that complicated. I've just never understood why people who are consumed by balance and gaming even play Warhammer. It's obviously not a game that could ever be properly balanced.
Because it is possible to enjoy something whilst simultaneously being aware that it is flawed and holding a desire that it improve.
People are complicated like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It could definitely be better balanced too, which is what most people are asking for.
I understand gaming, (I've been playing GW games for nearly 20 years) I just don't get this continual push and demand for balance when perfect balance in a game like this is impossible.
Alpharius wrote: I really hope we don't go back a 3E style Psychic Phase - that was a massive over-correction to the 2E Psychic Phase, and it went way, way too far!
How did it work in 2nd/3rd? Was it effective? I have never played 2nd or 3rd so I have no experience even watching it play out.
Hollow wrote: I understand the concept. As you said, it's not that complicated. I've just never understood why people who are consumed by balance and gaming even play Warhammer. It's obviously not a game that could ever be properly balanced.
You don't have the be 'consumed by balance' to not want to bother using worthless options.
I'm not a particularly competitive gamer. I still like to have an army that isn't completely useless, though. So without getting overly math-hammery, I avoid options that are obviously sub-par (and if I'm noticing that they're sub-par, then that generally means they're pretty dire) ... and so this close to a new edition, I would be thinking twice about new purchases, unless they were just for something that I really wanted regardless of its rules, because outside of those models that I'm buying because I love them, I don't want to waste my limited hobby budget on something that I'm not actually going to use.
Hollow wrote: I understand gaming, (I've been playing GW games for nearly 20 years) I just don't get this continual push and demand for balance when perfect balance in a game like this is impossible.
Ah right, so because perfection is impossible we just give up on getting any better at all?
Nobody's demanding perfection. For years, all people were asking GW to do was try.
Hollow wrote: I just don't get this continual push and demand for balance ...
... perfect balance ...
Those aren't even remotely equivalent. "Balance" and "perfect balance" are different concepts.
One is the push to improve things to a state where they are considered good, the other is an unattainable concept, a platonic ideal that does not exist in reality.
When people push for balance, they aren't pushing for perfect balance. To think they are excludes a vast swathe of options in between.
Don't assume that someone pushing for 40k (or any game) to be more balanced has some unrealistic view of the term. To assume there is only imbalance or perfect balance is incorrect. It is possible for an imbalanced game to become more balanced without ever attaining perfection. And most GW games? Well, let's say they have a lot of room for growth. Hopefully GW make the claim to want to improve and stick with it this time (if not, at least the rules were free).
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that.
Alpharius wrote: I really hope we don't go back a 3E style Psychic Phase - that was a massive over-correction to the 2E Psychic Phase, and it went way, way too far!
How did it work in 2nd/3rd? Was it effective? I have never played 2nd or 3rd so I have no experience even watching it play out.
In 3rd edition the psychic power listed what phase it would be used in (or sometimes it was before your movement phase, enemy shooting phase, etc.). Your psycher could then manifest the power by taking a leadership test and passing it. If it was a shooting psychic power it would replace your ranged weapon (unless you were allowed to shoot both). There was no dedicated psychic phase and the only way to block a power was by using a psychic hood, which (I believe) nullified any power on a 4+ if it was within 24 inches. Tyranids made using those powers much more hazardous.
Hollow wrote: I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.
If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.
It's not really all that complicated.
Hell, it even makes modelling miniatures that are already owned into a gamble. I am asking myself with everything I have "What can I build that won't possibly be invalidated as a legitimate option in the new rules?". So far, that has been a Vindicator and two Drop Pods. I might make the bodies of many of my Skitarii walkers (Donkeytank and Ironstriders), but I will have to freeze once the weapon options would go on. I have two Stalker tanks to build as well, so I guess I won't be gluing their tops on in case the Hunter suddenly outclasses them significantly. But infantry building is pretty well completely off the table for the time being. And that really stinks because those are the things I actually want to work on right now. I could build my two Venerable Dreadnoughts since all their weapon options short of the Flamer and Storm Bolter pop on and off anyway. I might actually field them now too.
Did I miss something that made the Vindicator invalidated in 8th edition? You are making me nervous.
Alpharius wrote: I really hope we don't go back a 3E style Psychic Phase - that was a massive over-correction to the 2E Psychic Phase, and it went way, way too far!
How did it work in 2nd/3rd? Was it effective? I have never played 2nd or 3rd so I have no experience even watching it play out.
2nd had a lot in common with 7th, except you rolled to see how many cards were dealt from a deck, and then used those cards in turn to cast powers (or nullify.)
It was a whole mini game where the inactive player had to decide whether to use their nullifies when a power was cast, or hang on in case the opposing player was actually going to try something worse later on.
3rd incorporated powers into the rest of the game turn, so witchfires were cast in the shooting phase, blessings and maledictions specified when they needed to be cast etc. All that was normally needed was a successful LD test, and chances to dispel were more limited.
On the topic of Psychic powers, with Ld scores set to reduce due to the new morale system, I can't help but think the oldish way with a Ld test will work well anymore. At the very least, it may well be quite a bit riskier than it once was if Ld 8-9 are considered high.
I'm of two minds, I also like the 2nd Edition card paradigm (I was actively excited to see a pseudo-return to psyker cards in 6th), but it was also a huge slow-down in play. And as a WFB dwarf player, I also appreciate the nuance that a phase in which some armies are utterly excluded can be a bit of a downer (at best) and an outright balance issue (at worst).
So it will be interesting to see how all these changes affect psykers. They are inarguably a core part of the 40k mythos and handling of them from edition to edition has usually been shaky at best, often going between too strong or too weak with no in between. Here's hoping they have a good solution in mind.
Kanluwen wrote: Bringing points back, officially, was a mistake in my mind.
An absurd criticism because there is a specific mode of play (two actually, IIRC) where you don't have to use them. The points are there for people who want to use them. They are optional.
Try getting games with Open or Narrative Play that don't involve doing the absurd amounts of negotiation/planning that people accused AoS requiring.
Hollow wrote: I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.
If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.
It's not really all that complicated.
Hell, it even makes modelling miniatures that are already owned into a gamble. I am asking myself with everything I have "What can I build that won't possibly be invalidated as a legitimate option in the new rules?". So far, that has been a Vindicator and two Drop Pods. I might make the bodies of many of my Skitarii walkers (Donkeytank and Ironstriders), but I will have to freeze once the weapon options would go on. I have two Stalker tanks to build as well, so I guess I won't be gluing their tops on in case the Hunter suddenly outclasses them significantly. But infantry building is pretty well completely off the table for the time being. And that really stinks because those are the things I actually want to work on right now. I could build my two Venerable Dreadnoughts since all their weapon options short of the Flamer and Storm Bolter pop on and off anyway. I might actually field them now too.
Did I miss something that made the Vindicator invalidated in 8th edition? You are making me nervous.
No. The Vindicator only really has one option as far as I am concerned, whether or not to have a Storm Bolter. So I am not worried about the Vindicator because there really is only one way to build it. And I think it is probably going to have some pretty awesome rules (maybe 24" Heavy 2d6Str 10 W1, which would be pretty sweet). It was one model that I felt safe assembling.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Here's what concerns me about those weapon stats:
"Bespoke rules"
So are bolters going to differ from army to army? From unit to unit? Those are the Flamer rules, but are they the Flamer rules, or the Adeptus Astartes Tactical Squad Flamer rules? Is a unit going to have a Flamer that's called a Flamer, but it does D6+1 hits because of some bespoke rule the unit has?
The less you centralise (like an armoury), the more things you have with the same name but different rules.
Could be a simple armory and then units like Rubrics could have a bespoke rule that their boltguns and flamers have rend of 1. The weapons will probably be on the scroll anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: I think psykers will have their powers, what they do and how/when they are cast on their data cards, and that'll be that.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Please just let us choose our powers. Even if we have to pay for them.
This. I hate rolling for powers. If they made it so you picked your powers it would speed up the pregame as well. They did say that they made significant changes to the psychic system, so I have hopes for something good to come out of it.
In the recent AoS battletomes, you have the option of assigning certain powers (for Sigmarine leaders, for example) OR rolling for them, at the player's option.
Getting rid of all the pre-game nonsense would save a lot of time, and for no loss. Since it sounds like the mechanics of the game aren't really getting faster (if anything it sounds like more dice to roll, wounds to track, etc..) I hope they make setup as fast as possible.
Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.
amanita wrote: Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.
amanita wrote: Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.
A Lascannon will hit one model and deal d6 wounds to it. A flamer will hit d6 models and deal 1 wound to each.
Daedalus81 wrote: Could be a simple armory and then units like Rubrics could have a bespoke rule that their boltguns and flamers have rend of 1. The weapons will probably be on the scroll anyway.
In 12 pages? I doubt it.
And yeah, I figured they'd be on the scroll, but that's the problem. The more and more bespoke rules everyone gets, the more of a mess it becomes and we just get 7th in a different format. It we then add to that the possibility that the same weapons will have different rules between armies or, worse, between unit types in the same army, and they retain the same name... good God keeping track of that will be difficult.
"I'm using my flamer!" should never be met "What type of flamer?". There should be exactly one type of flamer, that does one thing and one thing only and is consistent. You can then have a hand flamer, a heavy flamer, a super-duper flamer and so on, but two units with Flamers should have the same rules for said flamers.
casvalremdeikun wrote: This. I hate rolling for powers. If they made it so you picked your powers it would speed up the pregame as well. They did say that they made significant changes to the psychic system, so I have hopes for something good to come out of it.
NO! Rolling for powers helps you to better Forge a Narrative!
In the same spirit, I can't keep up with the posting rate and I've missed some leaked details. I know what's in the FAQ and on the community page. Is someone (Dakka, BoLS, B&C, etc.) compiling blurry photos of half-pages with somebody's thumb over the important table? I'd love to see them all in one place without weeding through pages of alternating bitterness and giddiness.
Hollow wrote: I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.
If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.
It's not really all that complicated.
Hell, it even makes modelling miniatures that are already owned into a gamble. I am asking myself with everything I have "What can I build that won't possibly be invalidated as a legitimate option in the new rules?". So far, that has been a Vindicator and two Drop Pods. I might make the bodies of many of my Skitarii walkers (Donkeytank and Ironstriders), but I will have to freeze once the weapon options would go on. I have two Stalker tanks to build as well, so I guess I won't be gluing their tops on in case the Hunter suddenly outclasses them significantly. But infantry building is pretty well completely off the table for the time being. And that really stinks because those are the things I actually want to work on right now. I could build my two Venerable Dreadnoughts since all their weapon options short of the Flamer and Storm Bolter pop on and off anyway. I might actually field them now too.
Did I miss something that made the Vindicator invalidated in 8th edition? You are making me nervous.
No. The Vindicator only really has one option as far as I am concerned, whether or not to have a Storm Bolter. So I am not worried about the Vindicator because there really is only one way to build it. And I think it is probably going to have some pretty awesome rules (maybe 24" Heavy 2d6Str 10 W1, which would be pretty sweet). It was one model that I felt safe assembling.
And yeah, I figured they'd be on the scroll, but that's the problem. The more and more bespoke rules everyone gets, the more of a mess it becomes and we just get 7th in a different format. It we then add to that the possibility that the same weapons will have different rules between armies or, worse, between unit types in the same army, and they retain the same name... good God keeping track of that will be difficult.
"I'm using my flamer!" should never be met "What type of flamer?". There should be exactly one type of flamer, that does one thing and one thing only and is consistent. You can then have a hand flamer, a heavy flamer, a super-duper flamer and so on, but two units with Flamers should have the same rules for said flamers.
It's not such a big deal if the scrolls are freely available. Right now you have to buy a book or pirate it to learn another army's capabilities. AoS excels tremendously at this -- I have all the scrolls for all armies loaded on my phone. When I change opponents I add all their units to my battle and I scroll through the ones I don't see too often.
Daedalus81 wrote: Could be a simple armory and then units like Rubrics could have a bespoke rule that their boltguns and flamers have rend of 1. The weapons will probably be on the scroll anyway.
In 12 pages? I doubt it.
And yeah, I figured they'd be on the scroll, but that's the problem. The more and more bespoke rules everyone gets, the more of a mess it becomes and we just get 7th in a different format. It we then add to that the possibility that the same weapons will have different rules between armies or, worse, between unit types in the same army, and they retain the same name... good God keeping track of that will be difficult.
"I'm using my flamer!" should never be met "What type of flamer?". There should be exactly one type of flamer, that does one thing and one thing only and is consistent. You can then have a hand flamer, a heavy flamer, a super-duper flamer and so on, but two units with Flamers should have the same rules for said flamers.
Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.
You already basically have bespoke rules - the difference going forwards is that instead of being littered across multiple locations, they will be there on your unit entry / warscroll to easily refer to/
I assumed, seeing that there are weapon profiles, that the weapons rules would stay consistent across the game. Obviously they could add special rules that alter it for each unit, but in that case why create standard weapon profiles in the first place? that would actually be more complicated than just having a different weapon profile for every unit.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Please just let us choose our powers. Even if we have to pay for them.
This. I hate rolling for powers. If they made it so you picked your powers it would speed up the pregame as well. They did say that they made significant changes to the psychic system, so I have hopes for something good to come out of it.
I hope they just give each armies spell casters a few powers on their card and leave it at that. Actually, I am pretty certain that is how it will work. It's the cleanest way but more importantly it's the only way they are balancing them. I can see certain powers being available to anyone, I think in AOS there are community chest type spells like mystic shield or arcane bolt, then each caster has his own special ones. I can see force and probably some sort of mind bullet being available to anyone with each slate having its own bespoke powers.
dosiere wrote: I assumed, seeing that there are weapon profiles, that the weapons rules would stay consistent across the game. Obviously they could add special rules that alter it for each unit, but in that case why create standard weapon profiles in the first place? that would actually be more complicated than just having a different weapon profile for every unit.
If you have a unit and all it's rules in one page then you don't need to go flipping into a big book to remember what you may have forgotten.
Here is an annoying example. I can find the things I need to know about the Forgefiend scattered across 3 pages. Unfortunately if I forgot what phase IWND occurs in, if Daemon has any stipulations, or how to apply Fleet I have to go to another 1-2 pages in a separate book.
Or I could just have everything I need for it on one page.
Daedalus81 wrote: Could be a simple armory and then units like Rubrics could have a bespoke rule that their boltguns and flamers have rend of 1. The weapons will probably be on the scroll anyway.
In 12 pages? I doubt it.
And yeah, I figured they'd be on the scroll, but that's the problem. The more and more bespoke rules everyone gets, the more of a mess it becomes and we just get 7th in a different format. It we then add to that the possibility that the same weapons will have different rules between armies or, worse, between unit types in the same army, and they retain the same name... good God keeping track of that will be difficult.
"I'm using my flamer!" should never be met "What type of flamer?". There should be exactly one type of flamer, that does one thing and one thing only and is consistent. You can then have a hand flamer, a heavy flamer, a super-duper flamer and so on, but two units with Flamers should have the same rules for said flamers.
? But Why? A unit of Pyrovores isn't actually shooting flame, as they are using an acid spray that acts as a Flamer Template.
An Imperial Guard flamer is usually smaller, less complicated, and cheaper than a space marine flamer.
A Chaos Flamer could quite literally have any number of special rules as it could be a warped daemon flamer, rather than a normal flamer.
Do Tau have flamers? Cause if they do, I'm sure they'd put a special sciency flavor to it.
There are so many ways to literally throw fire at an enemy. Perhaps having special rules to differentiate them wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Daedalus81 wrote: Could be a simple armory and then units like Rubrics could have a bespoke rule that their boltguns and flamers have rend of 1. The weapons will probably be on the scroll anyway.
In 12 pages? I doubt it.
And yeah, I figured they'd be on the scroll, but that's the problem. The more and more bespoke rules everyone gets, the more of a mess it becomes and we just get 7th in a different format. It we then add to that the possibility that the same weapons will have different rules between armies or, worse, between unit types in the same army, and they retain the same name... good God keeping track of that will be difficult.
"I'm using my flamer!" should never be met "What type of flamer?". There should be exactly one type of flamer, that does one thing and one thing only and is consistent. You can then have a hand flamer, a heavy flamer, a super-duper flamer and so on, but two units with Flamers should have the same rules for said flamers.
casvalremdeikun wrote: This. I hate rolling for powers. If they made it so you picked your powers it would speed up the pregame as well. They did say that they made significant changes to the psychic system, so I have hopes for something good to come out of it.
NO! Rolling for powers helps you to better Forge a Narrative!
The issue you're having is you're applying USR logic to a bespoke system. Having 100 different flamers in a USR style systen is a$$ because you have to learn all of them, with bespoke rules you never need to remember more than the one you're using.
I've rolled up to the table with units I never even looked at before in Sigmar and learned how to play them in less then a minute. Bespoke rules seem scary because they seem like the SHOULD be more complicated and bloaty but in practice they're much easier to digest.
Daedalus81 wrote: Could be a simple armory and then units like Rubrics could have a bespoke rule that their boltguns and flamers have rend of 1. The weapons will probably be on the scroll anyway.
In 12 pages? I doubt it.
And yeah, I figured they'd be on the scroll, but that's the problem. The more and more bespoke rules everyone gets, the more of a mess it becomes and we just get 7th in a different format. It we then add to that the possibility that the same weapons will have different rules between armies or, worse, between unit types in the same army, and they retain the same name... good God keeping track of that will be difficult.
"I'm using my flamer!" should never be met "What type of flamer?". There should be exactly one type of flamer, that does one thing and one thing only and is consistent. You can then have a hand flamer, a heavy flamer, a super-duper flamer and so on, but two units with Flamers should have the same rules for said flamers.
? But Why? A unit of Pyrovores isn't actually shooting flame, as they are using an acid spray that acts as a Flamer Template.
An Imperial Guard flamer is usually smaller, less complicated, and cheaper than a space marine flamer.
A Chaos Flamer could quite literally have any number of special rules as it could be a warped daemon flamer, rather than a normal flamer.
Do Tau have flamers? Cause if they do, I'm sure they'd put a special sciency flavor to it.
There are so many ways to literally throw fire at an enemy. Perhaps having special rules to differentiate them wouldn't be such a bad idea.
well then you get to the complaint, people had, rightly or wrongly, about the rules being bloated with special case rules for every army. it's neither a good nor bad thing
cuda1179 wrote: So.... If flamers hit automatically, will high strength flamers be the best anti-aircraft weapon in the game? That just seems wrong on so many levels.
That is a big call.. considering you have no idea what the rules for flyers are
Didn't they already say there will still be a Psychic Phase?
Hopefully they will follow the AOS model for spells on Psychic Powers:
1) A few standard powers everyone knows
2) A set of powers for each 'faction' its psychers choose from
3) All powers used in one phase
4) powers cast with a 2d6 roll with a set target for each power (the stronger the power the higher the target)
cuda1179 wrote: So.... If flamers hit automatically, will high strength flamers be the best anti-aircraft weapon in the game? That just seems wrong on so many levels.
cuda1179 wrote: So.... If flamers hit automatically, will high strength flamers be the best anti-aircraft weapon in the game? That just seems wrong on so many levels.
Flyer rules are gone as we know them, they mentioned it in the Q&A.
mhsellwood wrote: Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.
You just misread everything I said.
Orks don't have flamers. They have Burners. It's a different weapon, it has different rules. The Heldrake doesn't have a flamer. It has a "Baleflamer" (if that's what it's called). It's a different weapon, it has different rules.
What I'm talking about is having two units with a 'Flamer' where the flamers are different. Or perhaps the 'Burner' that a Boyz Kommando unit gets is different to a 'Burner' that a Burner Boyz unit can get, despite being both called 'Burners'. Or two units with a 'Baleflamer', yet the Baleflamers on each have different rules despite looking like the same gun.
Or two Lascannons having different rules. Or two bolters. Or two Pulse Rifles. Or two Volcano cannons. And so on and so on.
In the same spirit, I can't keep up with the posting rate and I've missed some leaked details. I know what's in the FAQ and on the community page. Is someone (Dakka, BoLS, B&C, etc.) compiling blurry photos of half-pages with somebody's thumb over the important table? I'd love to see them all in one place without weeding through pages of alternating bitterness and giddiness.
We don't yet have any real leaks or blurry photos, only GW statements. Follow Atia's blog it's probably the best now, I haven't seen anything important in this thread that's not there: https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/
cuda1179 wrote: So.... If flamers hit automatically, will high strength flamers be the best anti-aircraft weapon in the game? That just seems wrong on so many levels.
Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.
amanita wrote: Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.
A Lascannon will hit one model and deal d6 wounds to it. A flamer will hit d6 models and deal 1 wound to each.
Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.
mhsellwood wrote: Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.
You just misread everything I said.
Orks don't have flamers. They have Burners. It's a different weapon, it has different rules. The Heldrake doesn't have a flamer. It has a "Baleflamer" (if that's what it's called). It's a different weapon, it has different rules.
What I'm talking about is having two units with a 'Flamer' where the flamers are different. Or perhaps the 'Burner' that a Boyz Kommando unit gets is different to a 'Burner' that a Burner Boyz unit can get, despite being both called 'Burners'. Or two units with a 'Baleflamer', yet the Baleflamers on each have different rules despite looking like the same gun.
Or two Lascannons having different rules. Or two bolters. Or two Pulse Rifles. Or two Volcano cannons. And so on and so on.
Get it?
If all you're worried about is the names, then don't. In AoS weapons with different rules always have different names.
amanita wrote: Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.
A Lascannon will hit one model and deal d6 wounds to it. A flamer will hit d6 models and deal 1 wound to each.
Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.
That may come from the description on the community site that says "...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."
It seems to imply that its damage would only ever apply to one model.
I agree with you that this is NOT how AoS handles damage. But then, this is 40k and we've not seen the full rules on how things like Heavy 1 (does that mean its damage can affect only 1 model?) work.
amanita wrote: Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.
A Lascannon will hit one model and deal d6 wounds to it. A flamer will hit d6 models and deal 1 wound to each.
Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.
That may come from the description on the community site that says "...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."
It seems to imply that its damage would only ever apply to one model.
I agree with you that this is NOT how AoS handles damage. But then, this is 40k and we've not seen the full rules on how things like Heavy 1 (does that mean its damage can affect only 1 model?) work.
If wound allocation has you assign hits, then determine # of wounds, followed by rolling to wound, then flamers could assign d6 hits to 1-d6 model(s), and a lascannon can only ever do d6 wounds to 1 model.
mhsellwood wrote: Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.
You just misread everything I said.
Orks don't have flamers. They have Burners. It's a different weapon, it has different rules. The Heldrake doesn't have a flamer. It has a "Baleflamer" (if that's what it's called). It's a different weapon, it has different rules.
What I'm talking about is having two units with a 'Flamer' where the flamers are different. Or perhaps the 'Burner' that a Boyz Kommando unit gets is different to a 'Burner' that a Burner Boyz unit can get, despite being both called 'Burners'. Or two units with a 'Baleflamer', yet the Baleflamers on each have different rules despite looking like the same gun.
Or two Lascannons having different rules. Or two bolters. Or two Pulse Rifles. Or two Volcano cannons. And so on and so on.
Get it?
Ok. So you are just assuming the worst case scenario, being that two flamers will be named exactly the same but have completely different rules (although I note that you have chosen to ignore that in 7th you do have cases of flamers being different depending on who is carrying them).
But even assuming that, worst case scenario is what? I have space marine veterans and they carry a flamer that hits at strength 4, and tactical marines have one that hits at strength 3? So, the brain space required is... remembering if I have veterans they hit harder than tactical marines . On the other hand AoS rules suggest the more likely result is that weapons called flamers all act the same, and ones that are similar but different are named different things, like (say) burners might be similar to other flame weapons but different.
I guess for me I look at what has been done in AoS, see the similarities in the new Warhammer 40K, and use that to inform my speculation.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Here's what concerns me about those weapon stats:
"Bespoke rules"
So are bolters going to differ from army to army? From unit to unit? Those are the Flamer rules, but are they the Flamer rules, or the Adeptus Astartes Tactical Squad Flamer rules? Is a unit going to have a Flamer that's called a Flamer, but it does D6+1 hits because of some bespoke rule the unit has?
The less you centralise (like an armoury), the more things you have with the same name but different rules.
Could be a simple armory and then units like Rubrics could have a bespoke rule that their boltguns and flamers have rend of 1. The weapons will probably be on the scroll anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: I think psykers will have their powers, what they do and how/when they are cast on their data cards, and that'll be that.
Oh god please no.
The fact their is still a S. Vs. T. Mechanic kinda suggests to me well influenced by AoS they will not be taking it as far.
Also even I'm AoS they are bringing back magic lore for armies up top on unit spefic powers. It seems clear gw gets most fans like having a list of powers to choose from.
Also on the bespoke rules thing. The idea in AoS is generally small unit special rules that give bonuses to help it in its combat role/play style. It's not a war gear thing. Like with chaos warriors a chaos rune shield mostly does the same thing no matter the unit. Same with a marauder shield.
Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.
That may come from the description on the community site that says "...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."
It seems to imply that its damage would only ever apply to one model.
More directly, it comes from this sentence:
Warhammer Community wrote:Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model.
mhsellwood wrote: Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.
You just misread everything I said.
Orks don't have flamers. They have Burners. It's a different weapon, it has different rules. The Heldrake doesn't have a flamer. It has a "Baleflamer" (if that's what it's called). It's a different weapon, it has different rules.
What I'm talking about is having two units with a 'Flamer' where the flamers are different. Or perhaps the 'Burner' that a Boyz Kommando unit gets is different to a 'Burner' that a Burner Boyz unit can get, despite being both called 'Burners'. Or two units with a 'Baleflamer', yet the Baleflamers on each have different rules despite looking like the same gun.
Or two Lascannons having different rules. Or two bolters. Or two Pulse Rifles. Or two Volcano cannons. And so on and so on.
Get it?
Ok. So you are just assuming the worst case scenario, being that two flamers will be named exactly the same but have completely different rules (although I note that you have chosen to ignore that in 7th you do have cases of flamers being different depending on who is carrying them).
But even assuming that, worst case scenario is what? I have space marine veterans and they carry a flamer that hits at strength 4, and tactical marines have one that hits at strength 3? So, the brain space required is... remembering if I have veterans they hit harder than tactical marines . On the other hand AoS rules suggest the more likely result is that weapons called flamers all act the same, and ones that are similar but different are named different things, like (say) burners might be similar to other flame weapons but different.
I guess for me I look at what has been done in AoS, see the similarities in the new Warhammer 40K, and use that to inform my speculation.
Astra militarum flamer = s3
Space marine flamer =s4
Salamanders space marine flamer =s5
3 different profiles with 3 different names for the same weapon, job done.
Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.
How do you know this?
I haven't seen anything that states that (and I've read most of this 90 page monstrosity!), so I think it's a guess. Not a bad one IMHO, as it would replicate the "can't be hit by templates" mechanic quite neatly.
Another option would be to use the old Apocalypse rule, where you had to subtract 12" from the weapon range when firing at fliers, which I always liked as being quite fluffy as well as sensible.
Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.
How do you know this?
I haven't seen anything that states that (and I've read most of this 90 page monstrosity!), so I think it's a guess. Not a bad one IMHO, as it would replicate the "can't be hit by templates" mechanic quite neatly.
Another option would be to use the old Apocalypse rule, where you had to subtract 12" from the weapon range when firing at fliers, which I always liked as being quite fluffy as well as sensible.
I have to admit that I also liked the "Add 12 inches to the distance" that the old FW fliers used to have. It actually made sense and was easy to figure out.
Some people are talking about the new faction being Rak'gol, but I have a brand new salt shaker.
Fascinating idea regardless - could be the ogre equivalent for 40k.
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Rak%27Gol
Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.
How do you know this?
I haven't seen anything that states that (and I've read most of this 90 page monstrosity!), so I think it's a guess. Not a bad one IMHO, as it would replicate the "can't be hit by templates" mechanic quite neatly.
Another option would be to use the old Apocalypse rule, where you had to subtract 12" from the weapon range when firing at fliers, which I always liked as being quite fluffy as well as sensible.
So it was an a**pull you tried to pass off as fact. People hated that flyers were basically playing a different game in 7th and I doubt they'll have any particular rules about who can shoot what for them in 8th. Plenty of things fly in sigmar, but they still get punched like anything else.
I really doubt we'd get the Rak'gol. I mean yeah, it'd be awesome.
mhsellwood wrote: Ok. So you are just assuming the worst case scenario...
Again, 8th time they've tried to get 40K right. Their track record ain't great. Give me a reason why I should believe that this time it'll be different?
mhsellwood wrote: ... being that two flamers will be named exactly the same but have completely different rules (although I note that you have chosen to ignore that in 7th you do have cases of flamers being different depending on who is carrying them).
What are those examples? Even so, my point still stands. It's a bad way to write rules.
mhsellwood wrote: So, the brain space required is... remembering if I have veterans they hit harder than tactical marines.
You shouldn't be required to fill 'brain space' with the notion that two things that are the same somehow have different rules. It's bad design.
mhsellwood wrote: On the other hand AoS rules suggest the more likely result is that weapons called flamers all act the same, and ones that are similar but different are named different things, like (say) burners might be similar to other flame weapons but different.
That's fine. I mean we have that now, flamer vs burner vs Hellhound vs etc.
mhsellwood wrote: I guess for me I look at what has been done in AoS, see the similarities in the new Warhammer 40K, and use that to inform my speculation.
Wasn't the example given that there are units in AoS that have 'Shields' that do one thing, and then others that also have 'Shields', but these shields do something different?
Wasn't the example given that there are units in AoS that have 'Shields' that do one thing, and then others that also have 'Shields', but these shields do something different?
Not quite - a unit might have "Tomb Shields" or "Fang Shields" or whatever that do slightly different things.
If they make cards (or people use home made ones) then its incredibly simple to check rules - just have a quick look at the card. It works in many other games very well.
FAR Far better than thumbing through various codexes or God forbid trying to scroll through pages on someone's phone that no one can quite see and then the owner gives up because he can't find it
mhsellwood wrote: Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.
You just misread everything I said.
Orks don't have flamers. They have Burners. It's a different weapon, it has different rules. The Heldrake doesn't have a flamer. It has a "Baleflamer" (if that's what it's called). It's a different weapon, it has different rules.
What I'm talking about is having two units with a 'Flamer' where the flamers are different. Or perhaps the 'Burner' that a Boyz Kommando unit gets is different to a 'Burner' that a Burner Boyz unit can get, despite being both called 'Burners'. Or two units with a 'Baleflamer', yet the Baleflamers on each have different rules despite looking like the same gun.
Or two Lascannons having different rules. Or two bolters. Or two Pulse Rifles. Or two Volcano cannons. And so on and so on.
Get it?
I don't understand why you're assuming they'll be different in the first place to be honest. I think the far more likely scenario is that the armouries are at the back of the new 5 books for the factions, with standardised profiles. I mean, there's potential even in 7th that these weapons could have been different codex to codex (and wouldn't be unprecedented either) but they weren't. Seems like an odd thing to get riled up over with no evidence and no logical reason to believe it will happen; bespoke unit rules don't necessarily mean bespoke weapon rules.
Rak'gol look like old 2nd Edition Tyranids to me in all the artwork, I don't think they would be a good new race to bring in. Rather see H'rud, squats, or something completely alien like an army of floating brains that live in the vaccuum of space.
Shuma-Gorath wrote: Rather see H'rud, squats, or something completely alien like an army of floating brains that live in the vaccuum of space.
Yeah, me too. I'd rather see a new xenos race than 2 kinds of marines again... Space is big, it ain't all about humanity's inner struggle with chaos and gak.
Genestealer cults are the best thing that's been out in recent years IMO and there are mo unxeplored xeno species in the lore out there - 2 or 3 multi-part kits + a commander would be perfect for me.
It's a vain hope though ;( - we all know that nu-marines + death guard are coming.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I really doubt we'd get the Rak'gol. I mean yeah, it'd be awesome.
mhsellwood wrote: Ok. So you are just assuming the worst case scenario...
Again, 8th time they've tried to get 40K right. Their track record ain't great. Give me a reason why I should believe that this time it'll be different?
In fairness, its more the 8th time they've released 40k. I'm not sure they've tried to get 40k right at any stage other than a brief window between 3rd and 4th.
In fairness, its more the 8th time they've released 40k. I'm not sure they've tried to get 40k right at any stage other than a brief window between 3rd and 4th.
Probably 5th was also an effort - I remember Allessio talking about going to different clubs to see how people were actually playing the game. He based some rules in 5th on these observations.
casvalremdeikun wrote: This. I hate rolling for powers. If they made it so you picked your powers it would speed up the pregame as well. They did say that they made significant changes to the psychic system, so I have hopes for something good to come out of it.
I actually don't mind quasi-random powers like in 7th edition as such, when you don't always get to use same cheesy power it forces you to try new things and be imaginative. Also, in the lore sorcery and Warp is supposed to be unpredictable and dangerous. Problem is that rolling them is such a chore, combined with many other rolls you need to make (Warlord trait, reroll Warlord trait when you didn't get the one you wanted, objectives, deployment etc). None of these is unreasonable by itself but when you add them up together, starting up 7th edition game becomes annoying.
ERJAK wrote: 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.
It's great. It means there's more variety in weapons rather than there not being much difference between anti-tank and anti-infantry. Actually there would be little reason to NOT take anti-tank weapons since it is also very good at scything infantry. Heavy bolter? Nah lascannon is better at the job that's supposed to be job of heavy bolter. Screw it.
Basically you would have just grades of same weapon. "Weakest, weaker, weak, strong, stronger, stronger".
-men.
