My intention was not to gripe about how awesome my Wraithlords were and how much it sucks to be me now they the playing field is level.
The fact of the matter is that the playing field was never level. Wraithlords (WL) and Dreadnaughts have never made for a solid apples-to-apples comparison since they are totally different. For starters, they have extremely different point values to reflect their disparate performance, and the fill different roles on the table. My WLs have always been great at grabbing enemy attention. They are big and scary-looking and can take some punishment, and they don't lay down the hurt like some of the other choices. What makes them unique IMO is that unlike tradition tarpit units that can lock up enemy squads (any dreadnaught, most MCs, and a handful of ICs) WLs can tarpit larger, more dangerous enemies. I am not limited to keeping one of my enemies squads occupied - instead I could keep his HQ busy for a few turns, or his larger, heavier MCs. This role just isn't filled by other models. With the new changes it is filled by almost all walkers.
Dreadnaughts are, by comparison, more specialized. They can be dedicate for melee with various close combat weapons, or they can be kitted for dakka and sport autocannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, and so on. The WLs are sort less performant in either area but are competent at both. Sort of 'jack of all trades but master of none'.
Now, don't get me wrong. I still think this is a loss more than a victory for a few reasons. The most selfish reason is that I am an Eldar player of many years and as any Eldar player knows, there is already a huge problem with the FOC. Specifically the Heavy Support section and how saturated it is for my faction. Heavy support is already contentious and any time you chose to field a WL you're doing so knowing that you gave up a squad of War Walkers, a Fire Prism, or something else that would be super valuable - this is good, it means that each unit has a value. By removing the value of one unit you are giving it de-facto to another. If WLs become undesirable as I fear they will, all Eldar players will ultimately field less diverse forces. It hurts the game as a whole when fewer models are played. Perhaps a better way to say it - when more battlefield roles are performed by dedicated units.
It may be an extreme example, but think about what SM forces would play like if they just removed Dreadnaughts from the army list. How would you compensate for such a thing.
This all causes me to worry that GW may actually be telling the truth - they may actually be reducing the entire game to quick, more homogeneous matches. If 'everything can hurt everything' than the difference in value for any given part of that 'everything' is markedly reduced. the games will be shorter not because the rules were simplified, but because so much less of what you can do as a player matters. I am honestly worried that all units are just being reduced to 'versions' of their Space Marine counterparts. If Dire Avengers just become elfy-themed version of Space Marines, and WLs are just colorful iterations of dreadnaughts, what's to stop the same from happening to Chaos units, the Tau, or the Tyranids? What's the value in playing those forces?
Sorry - it's all pretty meta at this point since nothing is official until the rules are printed a published, but I think my worries are at the very least well founded.
Ahh but that's not what you said - at all. You most recently said:
Dreadnaughts are, by comparison, more specialized. They can be dedicate for melee with various close combat weapons, or they can be kitted for dakka and sport autocannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, and so on. The WLs are sort less performant in either area but are competent at both. Sort of 'jack of all trades but master of none'
So then previously you said:
One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
See the problem there?
Apparently the jack of all trades unit always wins against the specialist. So that can't be right?
makes them vastly superior to other walkers
Again - your words and one of the problems with 7th ed and 7.5 edition power dexes like Eldar
On the other concern - AOS units are all pretty different.....I am not that worried about that aspect
Point taken.
I'll ask that you forgive my not being a professional wordsmith.
I feel like I clarified my stance is that last post though. Superior is subjective, and for my purposes, the WL represented a superior value for two reasons. On one hand it was sort of like a SM Dreadnaught in that it was a walker that came from the same FOC section of the two books. The premium I paid in point cost manifested on the table by greater performance when compared to the lower point value of the Dread. If anything, this is a ode to the value of the point system. At least in this case, what you paid for is what you got.
On the other hand, when fielding my Dreads in my SM force, I rarely if ever used them as melee units. I got the most mileage out of them as ranged units. (Granted, this may be a symptom of 40k's longstanding bias towards ranged combat, and seems to be subject to change in this forthcoming edition). Both filled different roles.
50 guard in a blob with the following configuration - 10 flamers - 4 lascannons - 4 MLs - 2 HBs - 30 lasguns
That squad is extremely terrifying. Up close it throws out 60 STR 3 shots and 10d6 STR 4 flamer hits. It has a variety of heavy weapons it can use to target different targets.
At first I was thinking about how much better Chimera's got due to the AV10 side armor no longer being a huge issue, but now I'm looking at blob squads as downright scary.
Morale would feth that over. You'd lose a lot of models due to focus fire and lose even more in the morale phase.
50 guard in a blob with the following configuration
- 10 flamers
- 4 lascannons
- 4 MLs - 2 HBs - 30 lasguns
That squad is extremely terrifying. Up close it throws out 60 STR 3 shots and 10d6 STR 4 flamer hits.
It has a variety of heavy weapons it can use to target different targets.
At first I was thinking about how much better Chimera's got due to the AV10 side armor no longer being a huge issue, but now I'm looking at blob squads as downright scary.
Morale would feth that over. You'd lose a lot of models due to focus fire and lose even more in the morale phase.
Yeah, I was about to say the same. A couple of whirwinds/battlecannons/flamer squads/anything blasty are going to whittle that unit out so fast it wouldn't be funny.
50 guard in a blob with the following configuration
- 10 flamers
- 4 lascannons
- 4 MLs - 2 HBs - 30 lasguns
That squad is extremely terrifying. Up close it throws out 60 STR 3 shots and 10d6 STR 4 flamer hits.
It has a variety of heavy weapons it can use to target different targets.
At first I was thinking about how much better Chimera's got due to the AV10 side armor no longer being a huge issue, but now I'm looking at blob squads as downright scary.
Morale would feth that over. You'd lose a lot of models due to focus fire and lose even more in the morale phase.
That depends on the modifiers for morale. Without any modifiers, they can lose tons of guard. With commisars they might be harder to break. There might be bonus' for large groups.
50 guard in a blob with the following configuration
- 10 flamers
- 4 lascannons
- 4 MLs - 2 HBs - 30 lasguns
That squad is extremely terrifying. Up close it throws out 60 STR 3 shots and 10d6 STR 4 flamer hits.
It has a variety of heavy weapons it can use to target different targets.
At first I was thinking about how much better Chimera's got due to the AV10 side armor no longer being a huge issue, but now I'm looking at blob squads as downright scary.
The last part assumes rapid fire remains the same. We don't know that it has. Maybe it gives a +1 at short range or re-rolls? Who knows?
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Yeah, I was about to say the same. A couple of whirwinds/battlecannons/flamer squads/anything blasty are going to whittle that unit out so fast it wouldn't be funny.
And a squad of fire dragons will likely screw over a dreadnoughts day. We can use 'the counter' argument any day of the week. The unknowns are "How much would such a blob cost" and "how common such counters are". MCs might be all the rage, meaning we might not see any whirlwinds on the table, etc..
Right now I'd assume the rles and points costs of a unit will change more than their wargear choices.
That said we already know the rules and points costs for wargear will be changing too so even if certain selections aren't illegal in the new edition depending on what you want a unit to do (even if it's to be a generalist TAC unit) the best options for those roles may change.
I'm kind of hoping that melta turns into an inverse-conversion beam in that the closer it is the stronger it is but at the same time the more likely you are to be charged. Say 12", 9", 6", and 3" distances with the multi-melta having a similar profile but double the ranges (24", 18", 12", 6") and a slightly better rend value.
Twin-linking will be interesting. Are we going to just get double shots now, or will they deal double damage, or are they keeping their flat re-rolls?
Plasma and grav both will be made or forgotten by their rules so the sooner we know how they look the better imo.
Zach wrote: And you thought Tau shooting phases were long now...
If split-fire works like it did for Long Fangs in 5th edition then it won't, as you'll have to decide on which models shoot which targets/units before rolling the dice.
Sure, some thinking time might be involved, but e.g. taking a squad of fire warriors with a fictional heavy weapon, deciding on the heavy weapon and 4 pulse rifles shooting that rhino and the other 5 pulse rifles shooting at that infantry squad won't take long in practice.
If you so completely over-saturate the other player with different targets that he/she can't decide what to shoot then chances are pretty good you're going to win and that's worth the extra seconds of waiting I'd say ;-).
Morale would feth that over. You'd lose a lot of models due to focus fire and lose even more in the morale phase.
It won't if commissars have a rule along the lines of "rolled a morale test that results in multiple guys running away? Execute just one of them an the rest stays!", which sounds pretty plausible (they have to include the execution part after all, otherwise it wouldn't be a commissar, and that's the soundest way to do it IMO).
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Yeah, I was about to say the same. A couple of whirwinds/battlecannons/flamer squads/anything blasty are going to whittle that unit out so fast it wouldn't be funny.
And a squad of fire dragons will likely screw over a dreadnoughts day. We can use 'the counter' argument any day of the week. The unknowns are "How much would such a blob cost" and "how common such counters are". MCs might be all the rage, meaning we might not see any whirlwinds on the table, etc..
Also this. Blobs are always a paper-scissors kinda choice, which makes them strong in all-comers environments where people usually can't tailor their list against them.
Imateria wrote: Really happy to see split fire for everyone is a thing, this will make none specialised units far more valuable.
Even specialist units could see more use. Fire dragons split firing at two tanks instead of super murdering one for example. It adds tactics to the shooting phase and how you choose your targets. Since any weapon has a chance of hurting anything it may be better to fire those 18 Bolters in a Sisters blob at the Looted Wagon your melta is shooting at, or you may feel there is s better choice by trying to also hit the mob of Boyz next to said Looted Wagon.
Clearly Commisars will be replacing the execution rule wi the power hug rule to make the game more kid friendly.
seriously thoug, I assume mitigation of battleshock will be common. It's strong when you can't mitigate losses but things like the Mob Rule, Commisars, and Synapse will likely keep things from getting out of hand.
As long as the mitigation can also be mitigated I'll be happy. Less "completely ignore morale rules" in the game the better.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
And you've now quite clearly explained exactly why this change is both good and necessary...
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Also this. Blobs are always a paper-scissors kinda choice, which makes them strong in all-comers environments where people usually can't tailor their list against them.
We also don't play in a vacuum. If one blob costs you 400 points, that leaves you 1100 points for the rest of your army. In addition to that blob you might have 3 LRBTs, 2 Vendettas, and more. It's all just guessing at this point.
There are some pretty good guesses we can make about IG though, based on how the army has been played for the past few decades.
1) They will have special rules to help LD (Commissars)
2) They will be able to form large units.
3) They will have access to lots of tanks.
.
We can make reasonable guesses that they will have the following
1) They will have access to orders (maybe through the use of command points)
2) They will not have great 'elite' units like terminators. (The concept of elite unit, not the force org slot)
3) The will have access to strong flyers (based on the model. All flyers being troop transports, and having lots of LCs)
50 guard in a blob with the following configuration
- 10 flamers
- 4 lascannons
- 4 MLs - 2 HBs - 30 lasguns
That squad is extremely terrifying. Up close it throws out 60 STR 3 shots and 10d6 STR 4 flamer hits.
It has a variety of heavy weapons it can use to target different targets.
At first I was thinking about how much better Chimera's got due to the AV10 side armor no longer being a huge issue, but now I'm looking at blob squads as downright scary.
Morale would feth that over. You'd lose a lot of models due to focus fire and lose even more in the morale phase.
I'm starting to see how 8th will be the "Balanced Edition". With split fire pulling away from the old unit tailoring to a balanced approach. With Monstrous Creatures and vehicles losing combat effectiveness as they lose wounds. With all armies getting released at the same time (not to mention formations being gone) the playing field becomes more even than ever before. Balance seems to be a core mechanic in 8th edition 40K.
ClockworkZion wrote: Clearly Commisars will be replacing the execution rule wi the power hug rule to make the game more kid friendly. seriously though, I assume mitigation of battleshock will be common. It's strong when you can't mitigate losses but things like the Mob Rule, Commisars, and Synapse will likely keep things from getting out of hand.
As long as the mitigation can also be mitigated I'll be happy. Less "completely ignore morale rules" in the game the better.
Honestly?
I hope that Commissars just let you get a reroll.
OFFICERS should be the ones letting you ignore Battleshock.
v0iddrgn wrote: I'm starting to see how 8th will be the "Balanced Edition". With split fire pulling away from the old unit tailoring to a balanced approach. With Monstrous Creatures and vehicles losing combat effectiveness as they lose wounds. With all armies getting released at the same time (not to mention formations being gone) the playing field becomes more even than ever before. Balance seems to be a core mechanic in 8th edition 40K.
A few people on this forum have used the derogatory term of 'tournament edition' as this edition was heavily playtested with many tournament groups.
I don't see that as a bad thing, in fact quite the opposite. A more balanced game means people can play more of what they want and still be at least partially competitive.
The big weakness of guard that I always noticed (exploited) was the long AV 10 sides on chimeras. Chimera's were great, but they were very static. It made it hard for them to move up to grab objectives.
The new vehicle rules mean that those long sides are not as much of a weakness as they were. Even if the Chimera is T7 with 6 wounds, it's much tougher than it was before.
This means that armored company IG might be effective again. It will depend on the fire points (if that's still at thing), etc... However, it's a definite possibility that the armored company may become a thing again.
Edit : Not as a leafblower list, but instead as guard moving up in tanks and securing objectives.
50 guard in a blob with the following configuration
- 10 flamers
- 4 lascannons
- 4 MLs - 2 HBs - 30 lasguns
That squad is extremely terrifying. Up close it throws out 60 STR 3 shots and 10d6 STR 4 flamer hits.
It has a variety of heavy weapons it can use to target different targets.
At first I was thinking about how much better Chimera's got due to the AV10 side armor no longer being a huge issue, but now I'm looking at blob squads as downright scary.
Morale would feth that over. You'd lose a lot of models due to focus fire and lose even more in the morale phase.
I'm starting to see how 8th will be the "Balanced Edition". With split fire pulling away from the old unit tailoring to a balanced approach. With Monstrous Creatures and vehicles losing combat effectiveness as they lose wounds. With all armies getting released at the same time (not to mention formations being gone) the playing field becomes more even than ever before. Balance seems to be a core mechanic in 8th edition 40K.
Let's hope that it is the case. But this is the company that gave us scatter laser bikes at a ridiculous low prices, even thought any college kid with even the slightest notions of statistics could realise how op they were
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
And you've now quite clearly explained exactly why this change is both good and necessary...
Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.
For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).
That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.
What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?
So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.
ClockworkZion wrote: Clearly Commisars will be replacing the execution rule wi the power hug rule to make the game more kid friendly. seriously though, I assume mitigation of battleshock will be common. It's strong when you can't mitigate losses but things like the Mob Rule, Commisars, and Synapse will likely keep things from getting out of hand.
As long as the mitigation can also be mitigated I'll be happy. Less "completely ignore morale rules" in the game the better.
Honestly?
I hope that Commissars just let you get a reroll.
OFFICERS should be the ones letting you ignore Battleshock.
Commisars exist to keep people from running away in fear. Mostly by shooting someone. I rather like the current method, you fail your test and can opt to use the Commisar. Roll a D6 and you choose who dies, on a 1 the opposing player chooses. Hope you didn't need that Lascannon team in your blob.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
And you've now quite clearly explained exactly why this change is both good and necessary...
Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.
For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).
That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.
What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?
So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.
Oh no, to balance the game some units had to get relatively weaker while others got relatively stronger. It's almost like to balance the game changes had to be made in both directions.
Sarcasm aside, this is something we're going to run across in every army: some units will feel weaker while others feel stronger. This is not a bad thing as long as the game is ultimately more balanced as a result.
For those that are obsessed about the speed of play, what's your opinion about the rule that everything can wound anything? Won't that make the game longer in most cases?
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Also this. Blobs are always a paper-scissors kinda choice, which makes them strong in all-comers environments where people usually can't tailor their list against them.
We also don't play in a vacuum. If one blob costs you 400 points, that leaves you 1100 points for the rest of your army. In addition to that blob you might have 3 LRBTs, 2 Vendettas, and more. It's all just guessing at this point.
There are some pretty good guesses we can make about IG though, based on how the army has been played for the past few decades.
1) They will have special rules to help LD (Commissars)
2) They will be able to form large units.
3) They will have access to lots of tanks.
.
We can make reasonable guesses that they will have the following
1) They will have access to orders (maybe through the use of command points)
2) They will not have great 'elite' units like terminators. (The concept of elite unit, not the force org slot)
3) The will have access to strong flyers (based on the model. All flyers being troop transports, and having lots of LCs)
A minor point but forming large units isn't a decades old thing, it's relatively new in the grand scheme of things. (2 codexes ago I think?) but I agree with your comments.
streetsamurai wrote: For those that are obsessed about the speed of play, what's your opinion about the rule that everything can wound anything? Won't that make the game longer in most cases?
Remember, these rules are the ones that were tested and used to determine that on average a 1.5k game takes 90 minutes under, which means that they won't make games longer in the long run. Once we get a hang of the rules and start building up our own tactics on when to split fire and when not to against targets any long games we have now will inevitably get faster as a result.
Easy to learn, hard to master seems to be the motto of this edition and that's fine by me.
Let's hope that it is the case. But this is the company that gave us scatter laser bikes at a ridiculous low prices, even thought any college kid with even the slightest notions of statistics could realise how op they were
Again though, we have been notified that ALL of the armies are being reworked at the same time. That in conjunction with the changes to the core rules that we have seen lead me to believe abominations like 7th edition Scatbikes will no longer exist.
En Excelsis wrote: So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down.
Just because you can do something does not mean it's an effective way to do something.
A bolter shot has a 1/27 of wounding a Morkanaut. It would take ~486 bolter shots to kill it.
That's 97 shots every turn over the course of 5 turns! Even if rapid fire still gives double shots within 12", that's 49 marines every turn shooting. It's just not going to happen. You might see a bolter get off a lucky shot, but they are the wrong tools for the job.
Likewise, an army of bright lance vypers will lose horribly to 150 orks. Bright lances are just the wrong tool for the job to kill cheap infantry.
Mr Morden wrote: Now that GW have finally managed to start producing card packs for their armies - this should become even easier.
I haven't played a real game since 6th. Since when was this? Is 8th edition going to have a pack of cards I can buy for all of my units in the same vein as Warmachine?
En Excelsis wrote: That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.
Ah, the old MMO 'but they got a buff' argument. Yes, other MCs got a buff putting them on par with the WL.
The inverse is also true. When a specific unit gets a nerf then all other classes...errr...units get a buff.
WL's got a huge buff because SMC's are said to no longer be completely better in every capacity than WLs. In 7th there was no reason to take a WLs over WKs. WKs were better in every facet imaginable. By SMC's getting a nurf, the WL (indeed, all other MCs and walkers) got a huge buff.
Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.
For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).
That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.
What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?
So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.
Positive gain - games will be balanced and all units should be useful in their own unique way.
I don't want this to come across as mean, but pull your head out of your own self centered views and take a bigger perspective.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
And you've now quite clearly explained exactly why this change is both good and necessary...
Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.
For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).
That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.
What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?
So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.
The positive gain to All players is that if OP units like Wraith Stuff are reudced in strength and other stuff is brought up to their new level in terms of power then balance is better. We have not seen the stats or pts for WraithLords so they may be the same value, better or worse. As I understand it alot of play testing was done by Tournament players and so they should be able to assess the true value / powwer level of a given unit.
Sorry but you are still coming across as "Wow my stuff was awesome but now its not going to be as awesome and people may have stuff as strong as me and thats not fair :( ".
Mr Morden wrote: Now that GW have finally managed to start producing card packs for their armies - this should become even easier.
I haven't played a real game since 6th. Since when was this? Is 8th edition going to have a pack of cards I can buy for all of my units in the same vein as Warmachine?
So far they have produced several army packs for AOS - one assumes they will do the same for new 40k
Let's hope that it is the case. But this is the company that gave us scatter laser bikes at a ridiculous low prices, even thought any college kid with even the slightest notions of statistics could realise how op they were
Again though, we have been notified that ALL of the armies are being reworked at the same time. That in conjunction with the changes to the core rules that we have seen lead me to believe abominations like 7th edition Scatbikes will no longer exist.
Yeah, but even if the eldar codex wasn't made at the same time as the other ones, the statistical ridiculousness of the scatter bike was so obvious that I'm not really confident that they won't repeat the same kind of mistakes. And anyways, IIRC, they stated that other codexes will appear afterward,
Not a problem though, because in the new Warhammer 40,000, models in a squad can fire at different targets. So, this means your Tactical Squad can have your boys with bolters deal with that onrushing Hormagaunt horde, while the flamer bathes a nearby Lictor in prometheum fire, and the squad’s krak missile takes an opportunistic pop-shot at that onrushing Carnifex – just as you always imagined they should!
Finally, after twenty years, my Imperial Guard infantry squads with a heavy bolter and a flamer aren't totally ridiculous any more!
ClockworkZion wrote: Clearly Commisars will be replacing the execution rule wi the power hug rule to make the game more kid friendly. seriously though, I assume mitigation of battleshock will be common. It's strong when you can't mitigate losses but things like the Mob Rule, Commisars, and Synapse will likely keep things from getting out of hand.
As long as the mitigation can also be mitigated I'll be happy. Less "completely ignore morale rules" in the game the better.
Honestly? I hope that Commissars just let you get a reroll.
OFFICERS should be the ones letting you ignore Battleshock.
Commisars exist to keep people from running away in fear. Mostly by shooting someone. I rather like the current method, you fail your test and can opt to use the Commisar. Roll a D6 and you choose who dies, on a 1 the opposing player chooses. Hope you didn't need that Lascannon team in your blob.
Commissars exist to maintain order within the ranks and to ensure that the orders an officer issues are completed.
If there's a "Summary Execution" rule, there needs to be a "Fragged" rule too. Squads that have suffered a casualty from Summary Execution roll a D6, on a roll of a 6 or 1 then the Commissar is fragged by the squad. I'd take Yarrick if that were the case. Because I would love to see him get fragged by a bunch of Conscripts.
ClockworkZion wrote: Oh no, to balance the game some units had to get relatively weaker while others got relatively stronger. It's almost like to balance the game changes had to be made in both directions.
Sarcasm aside, this is something we're going to run across in every army: some units will feel weaker while others feel stronger. This is not a bad thing as long as the game is ultimately more balanced as a result.
If the lack of balance was due exclusively to some units being over-powered and others being under-powered than sure, rearranging relative power of individual units would be remedial. Unfortunately that's not the reason the game is out of balance.
Here are the reasons WH40k is out of balance, in no particular order;
Matt Ward (yes, still). Flyers. Giant everything. Enormous mechanical bias in favor of shooting compared to close combat. Formations. Lords of War.
Balance is not the same as equality, it is more akin to equity. Each model needs a value. Not an equal value to some other model, just a value unto itself. There needs to be some reason for a player to want that model or set of models in his/her army. That does not mean that another model has to be sacrificed at the alter. I won't drive this particular point any further since I feel like my case for the WL has already been made in other posts.
More than all this, balance - regardless of how you implement it - always incurs a cost. True balance would almost make my last argument untrue. It would look like equality, where all the models are statistically the same but vary in appearance. Now I don't think that's the sort of balance that anyone really wants because the intangible qualities like character and flavor will always matter, even if people secretly pretend they don't want them. And that character and flavor is precisely the cost we'll have to pay for the sort of balance I see coming.
I just don't know that shorter matches are worth it - I mean, if you don't have a few hours to enjoy your hobby than is it really even your hobby at that point?
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
And you've now quite clearly explained exactly why this change is both good and necessary...
Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.
You mean, aside from that fact that two units that should ostensibly be of equal power (dreadnoughts and wraithlords, more generally vehicles vs MC's), that both even used to share the same name, will now be roughly equal as opposed to one having a major inherent advantage for no meaningful balance reason?
For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).
That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.
only of you view it as a zero sum game, and even then, thats not a bad thing if they're supposed to be roughly equal and were not. Thats the whole point of balancing stuff.
What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?
So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.
Just because bolters will be able to hurt a Land Raider doesn't mean they'll actually be useful in that role. If it take 500 bolters to kill one, I'm not worried about it. At the same time, a Land Raider isnt goig to die just because a high S weapon glanced it 4 times, it not only has to wound (penetrate under the old AV system) but now the LR gets a save (which it did not before) even if subject to ASM's, and with the new high number of wounds, isn't going to get punked off by a single lucky shot. We'll see if wound #'s balance out vs Damage (e.g. Lascannons D6) and the new to-wound table, that will be the kicker, but overall there are some very real tangible benefits that can be worked out.
Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.
For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).
That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.
What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?
So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.
Positive gain - games will be balanced and all units should be useful in their own unique way.
I don't want this to come across as mean, but pull your head out of your own self centered views and take a bigger perspective.
Ugh.
I've played this game for a long time as a reasonably wide selection of factions. I'm not sure my perspective could be any larger than it is. (And I have a huge perspective BTW )
It seems to be you who has the narrow view - hearing my example of the WL and how I foresee that being a symptom of a much larger problem and assuming that the sum of my statements is nothing more than complaining about one model being reducing in value and utility.
I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.
And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.
Little Guys update: Q: Hmm, I've always run my guard squads with lasguns only and kept tthe heavy weapons in seperate heavy weapons squads to not waste shots firing lasguns at tanks and so forth, looks like I might be putting the heavy weapons behind some meatshields, I mean squadmates, again.
A:It's a short but merry* life in the Imperial Guard! Heroism guaranteed**!
*Merriness not confirmed.
** Your experiences may differ.
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Q: Are we getting anymore faction updates? Yesterday's chaos space marines left me hungry for more
A: We we will indeed see more, Astra Militarum next!
Q: I guess with most vehicles having armour saves which won't really be affected by small arms fire, they should survive.
But isn't there a chance that poisened weapons will ignore that table?
Or that someone tripe firing lasguns could easily roll enough 6's to take out a dreadnought in one volley?
A: I mean.... you have to fire a a lot of lasguns to do it! I just had a game at lunchtime today.. a Tactical Squad firing at a Rhinofor three turns barely scratched it....
Q: Woah, does that mean Strength 7 only wounds T4 on a 3+ instead of 2+?
A: That's right. Conversely, S: 4 now wounds anything up to T:7 on just a 5+...
Q: Will FW chapters be in the update?
A: Indeed, yes, FW have committed to getting rules out for all of their Warhammer 40,000 models on launch.
Q: Little guys? Squats confirmed?!?
A: Haha! Not *that* little, I'm afraid!
Q: So a plasmagun wounds a marine on a 3+? Do I get that right?
A: That's right... but now a bolt gun wounds Toughness 7 on a 5+...
Big Models: Q: The Hivemind thanks you New Games Workshop! Best news yet!
A: Thanks, Hivemind!
Say, what's this bug on the back of my he...... WE LOVE THE HIVEMIND.
Q: Is there any plans for GW to release an easy to use countdown wound counter? It's now usable for AoS and 40k. They could be sold in different sizes for each model level. 0-10, 10-20, 20+
A: We do indeed! Check these out: https://www.games-workshop.com/Citadel-Wound-Trackers
Q: How will that work for Vehicles that had such differences in AV? E.g. a Leman Russ being 14 front 10 rear. Is the squishy rear no longer reflected?
A: Hey Thomas- Tanks have one Toughness value and wound count, just like other large models.
Q: The real question is will I be able to take an army of flayed ones?
A: Absolutely, yes! What a terrifying army that would be...!
Warzone Cadia: Q: Will there be an article about what is the new situation of Fenris, after the whole war with Magnus, the great losses of Fenrisians lives (due to both Chaos and the Inquisition) and the fact that now they are almost in the middle of the Rift?
A: Hey Giacomo- There very well could be. Keep your eye on this page!
Q: Is there actually anything left of Cadia to reclaim? I thought the planet blew up.
A: Hey Kevin - it didn't blow up as such... there is still a planet left...not much of it, but it still stands!
Q: What will happen with the Apocalypse? Will it be playable in 8th, or will you release a new rulebook?
A: Hey Pablo; great to hear you enjoy Apocalypse! What we know right now is that current expansions and the like will not be compatible with the new edition of the game. We're very early days at the moment, so we haven't released any information about specific rules sets in the new edition. Watch this space on what's coming in the future!
Q: Didn't the planet explode?
A: Hey Richard - the smoking remains of Cadia still stand!
Chaos Marine Focus: Q: I think we all want to know if the original Traitor Legions will have their specific personality, rules and play styles that were partially restored by the Traitor Legions supplement, or if we will be back to "Generic Chaos" at launch.
A: Hey guys - the Traitor Legions will indeed be getting rules to distinguish them from each other. More news on what that looks like in the future.
Q: It's like christmas in.. May? when is the next faction focus article? Will it be Tyranids? If not, why would you anger the great devourer so?
FUTHER Q IN RESPONSE TO OTHER POSTERS: All they have to say is "you can use something other than flying hive tyrant and have fun"
A: You can indeed use something other than the flying hive tyrant and have an absolute bawl!
EDIT: errr, of course, we mean "ball", of course! There will be no bawling, we promise!
Q: Warhammer 40,000 - its been suggested that I ask if my Imperial Knights will be viable and able to be used in "Matched Play" since implying that I want to be able to do so is not clear enough. Basically I'm not going to play "Open play" and I won't play "narrative play" very often, all I will play 99% of the time is "matched play" as I normally play at tournaments. So again the question is will I be able to use an entire army of imperial knights in matched play? Also since Deathwing was completely screwed in the last Dark Angel Codex, (which invalidated how I used to run them as a pure Deathwing army), can I please ask again, will I be able to dust them off from their 2 year imprisonment in boxes and run them in matched play as a pure Deathwing Army once again?
A: Hey Matt - pretty sure we've answered this elsewhere too... but yes! Knights and Deathwing will be a viable matched play army in the new edition.
Q: Thank goodness for that; I'm getting tired of playing the good guys! I can finally play my Ultramarines the way they were intended Fingers crossed for new CSM models too, or at least a conversion kit for use with Calth and Prospero squads.
A: Are you suggesting the Ultramarines are the bad guys?! I demand satisfaction, sir! *slaps face with glove*
Q: What about the forge world special minotaurs models? Like Asterion Moloc will he have rules?
A: Hey Murray - a good question, sir! Well, Forge World have said that every model we sell right now will be getting rules. Moloc is on sale right now... so look out for new rules for him incoming!
Q: I'd rather know if my full imperial knight army will be able to be used as an army in the new edition without being unbound or if my all Deathwing army will be useable also without being unbound (or without being whatever the new unbound is)...
A: Hey Matt - absolutely,- both Knights and Deathwing will 100% be able to be used in the new edition. No armies are being made obsolete.
Q: Will Chaos Marines finally gain access to drop pods?
A: Hey Lee - that's a great question. On release, we will be covering all of the models we currently see, which means, no, there will not be a Chaos Space Marine Drop Pod. But who knows what the future brings! Keep your eye on this page for all the latest news on releases.
Q: Or you could just release 8th edition already....
A: Hey Andrew - the release date is set, but we thought we would let you guys know what's going on in advance, so you can get prepared for the release. As such, when the new game drops, it's not a huge surprise, or a load of information is having to be taken in at once.
Q: So what about us legions?
A: Hey Nathan; The Traitor Legions will have rules that distinguish themselves from each other, so your identity as a Legion is not lost. More on that coming later!
In a points based war game power must be determined by cost in a reasonable manner. Otherwise you are just paying to win. If a dreadnought cost 100 points and a Wraithlord cost 125, that wraithlord should be 25 points better. There is a problem though if that Wraithlord is effectively 50-100 points better but costs the same or less as that dreadnought. Things should be costed appropriately, and that might mean increasing the strength of the dreadnought and removing armor facings.
I'm surprised if you will find anyone who will be upset that dreadnoughts are getting better. In fact, I bet Wraithlord will be much more playable in the new edition than they ever were.
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.
I think the worry some have with the slow down of the game might be yea ye spare 5 bolter shots wont likely hurt that land raider but if you are within 12" and are already firing ye meltagun then why not give it a go.
Extend this to the course of a game with multiple units doing it on both sides over multiple turns that could be a whole lot o chucking dice into the wind hoping for luck because you might as well
Funny that "I'm dying for more faction focuses". IF you are so eager why wait? Just go to web store and look at bunch of units of faction of your choise. You get 100% same info out of it!
Split fire by model confirmed. Well this has been long pretty much confirmed so today's post basically just removed the off chance it wasn't going to change.
ClockworkZion wrote: Oh no, to balance the game some units had to get relatively weaker while others got relatively stronger. It's almost like to balance the game changes had to be made in both directions.
Sarcasm aside, this is something we're going to run across in every army: some units will feel weaker while others feel stronger. This is not a bad thing as long as the game is ultimately more balanced as a result.
If the lack of balance was due exclusively to some units being over-powered and others being under-powered than sure, rearranging relative power of individual units would be remedial. Unfortunately that's not the reason the game is out of balance.
No, a lack of unit balance was a large part of why the game was out of balance. You just split hairs here:
En Excelsis wrote: Here are the reasons WH40k is out of balance, in no particular order;
Matt Ward (yes, still). Flyers. Giant everything. Enormous mechanical bias in favor of shooting compared to close combat. Formations. Lords of War.
Everything you complained about is regarding balance. Game balance in a system that relies on people building a list from different units inevitably gets back to balance between said units. Right now there is no balance. 100 points spent on one squad isn't the same as 100 points spent on another squad, or a tank, or a flyer, or on whatever else you can think of. That is a lack of balance.
So yes, the Wraithlord had to get relatively weaker to make the game better. A lot of things ultimately did. Exorcist Tanks (a go-to Heavy Support option for Sisters) actually got worse at wounding models above T4 but this makes other army selection options more appropriate for use. We may finally see Retributors or Penitent Engines become more popular to use (well maybe the former since the latter is a pain in the throne to build and keep assembled without a soldering iron). This is ultimately not a bad thing, even if it means that something gets weaker.
Guess what else that weakening of a unit can bring? A points cost drop. Which means more options can fit into your list. Again, a good thing.
En Excelsis wrote: Balance is not the same as equality, it is more akin to equity. Each model needs a value. Not an equal value to some other model, just a value unto itself. There needs to be some reason for a player to want that model or set of models in his/her army. That does not mean that another model has to be sacrificed at the alter. I won't drive this particular point any further since I feel like my case for the WL has already been made in other posts.
More than all this, balance - regardless of how you implement it - always incurs a cost. True balance would almost make my last argument untrue. It would look like equality, where all the models are statistically the same but vary in appearance. Now I don't think that's the sort of balance that anyone really wants because the intangible qualities like character and flavor will always matter, even if people secretly pretend they don't want them. And that character and flavor is precisely the cost we'll have to pay for the sort of balance I see coming.
Relative power for the same points costs is the objective that balance seeks. Shooting that down because it made your favorite model relatively weaker by making choices that were under-powered in comparison better is frankly not an objective argument, but one made solely based on your emotional investment in said unit. Objectively the game gets better when the same points spent in any army can result in the same relative power level even if the models fill different roles in the army.
Complaining that your favorite model should somehow be exempt from this is just supporting a system where balance is thrown out in favor of pushing kits based on sales numbers and not actually trying to make player choice matter.
En Excelsis wrote: I just don't know that shorter matches are worth it - I mean, if you don't have a few hours to enjoy your hobby than is it really even your hobby at that point?
Why should I need to spend 4 hours playing one game when I can play two in the same time and have time to start a third, or play a Kill Team game?
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.
It works much better in practice than you may think.
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.
Yeah it could. It should be fine if you allocate all your shots before rolling. "10 bolers go into that unit, 2 more and the flamer goes into the other unit"
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.
Not really. Really to go to real micromanagement you need to have as many units in range to equally many units with unit count=# of models in your squad.
SURE if you have say 10 squads of 10 tacticals with bolters all in range of same 10 units you would benefit from splitting fire to 1 model per unit. (And even then this would be suboptimal)
Generally you want to concentrate as that's MUCH more effective than nilly willy casualties here and there approach.
I like the split fire thing a lot. Finally, it might be worth it to put that Dark Lance in a Splinter rifle Kabalite Squad. A hail of anti-infantry fire... and a surprise anti-tank shot! Nothing is wasted. Or the ability to shower one unit with most of the firepower all the while being able to devote one or two guns to finish off that lone soldier next to them. Neat.
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.
It works much better in practice than you may think.
if someone know how to speed things up
for other it will be time consuming and slow the game unnecessary down
split by weapon groups would be faster
streetsamurai wrote: So they pretty much confirmed that facings are removed from the game. A shame
That was confirmed multiple times before too. It's just that people refused to accept it until now.
Not really. They were indications that it was going to be removed, but nothing as clear as the answer in that Q&A
So when they showed the Dreadnought statline, the Morkanaught statline and said that vehicles no longer have armour value facings and share the same statline as everything else it wasn't clear enough?
And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.
I don't want to sound mean but...
That may be because we don't know any stats or points for the WL. You've put the cart before the horse.
I'm willing to bet that the Wraithlord (and many other MCs) will likely see a boost in wounds, a possible points drop and generally will feel more balanced than before. Also I'm willing to bet the WL will be more useful than "T8 fire magnet" like it was in older editions.
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.
It works much better in practice than you may think.
if someone know how to speed things up
for other it will be time consuming and slow the game unnecessary down
split by weapon groups would be faster
Depends on if you have to allocate all shooting at the same time like AoS or not. I've asked on FB for clarification, if I'm lucky I'll get an answer back.
ClockworkZion wrote: So when they showed the Dreadnought statline, the Morkanaught statline and said that vehicles no longer have armour value facings and share the same statline as everything else it wasn't clear enough?
There could have been common rule that gives bonus for rewarding positioning by flanking/rearing.
Apart from your apparent fondness for the changes I fail to see even a single gain.
For the sake of argument let's say that the folks at GW are already ahead of me on this and they've come up with a clever way to make WLs worth their point cost after the changes (Higher W count, shiny new weapon, some newfangled bespoke rule).
That still doesn't change that fact that by increasing the value of one unit you decrease the value of another. This isn't up for debate, it's simple fact.
What makes (made) super-tough units so super-tough? In most cases it was because they either had high values in defensive stats, or because only certain weapons were effective against them. If you take those two things away, they cease to be super-tough right?
So what happens when 'everything than hurt everything'. If bolters can take down LRs, than the value of the bolter went up (way up) and the value of the LR went down. The example most relevant to me was simply the WL because I have a long history with them, but apparently they are not well liked so people are happy to see them get nerfed - which is fine, but it still fails to provide a single positive gain to all this other than GW's claim that 'matches will be shorter'.
Positive gain - games will be balanced and all units should be useful in their own unique way.
I don't want this to come across as mean, but pull your head out of your own self centered views and take a bigger perspective.
Ugh.
I've played this game for a long time as a reasonably wide selection of factions. I'm not sure my perspective could be any larger than it is. (And I have a huge perspective BTW )
It seems to be you who has the narrow view - hearing my example of the WL and how I foresee that being a symptom of a much larger problem and assuming that the sum of my statements is nothing more than complaining about one model being reducing in value and utility.
I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.
And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.
I don't want to sound mean but...
nope sorry but thats not what happened:
You came into the thread saying that a specific unit and indeed group of units from the strongest codex in the game may not be as good as they were and how this in your opinion was a bad thing. Further you then said how great it was that the chosen unit was undefeated in many encounters with its opposite Imperial number depsite later saying it was a jack of all trades.
Passive Agressive statements aside the only argument you put forward was "some units (mine) are getting worse and thats bad" thats without seeing any stats fro the given unit!
ClockworkZion wrote: So when they showed the Dreadnought statline, the Morkanaught statline and said that vehicles no longer have armour value facings and share the same statline as everything else it wasn't clear enough?
There could have been common rule that gives bonus for rewarding positioning by flanking/rearing.
Ah well. Easy to house rule.
There could be a rule (which would be in the shooting rules), but that has nothing to do with facings having different values like they currently do.
That said, beyond "front" and "rear" there game doesn't really lend well to determining the facings of most models due to differences in poses, shapes of models, ect. Not impossible to have, but it'd be better to run a square base game with all four directions mattering for facing.
I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.
And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.
I don't want to sound mean but...
How can evidence be provided when we know nothing about the wraithlord at this point? It could have more wounds, move farther, or cost less now. Even its weapon options may have different rend or damage values associated with them to differentiate. Run a maulerfiend for a few games and come back and say that walkers shouldn't get the same treatment wraithlords have had.
streetsamurai wrote: So they pretty much confirmed that facings are removed from the game. A shame
That was confirmed multiple times before too. It's just that people refused to accept it until now.
Not really. They were indications that it was going to be removed, but nothing as clear as the answer in that Q&A
So when they showed the Dreadnought statline, the Morkanaught statline and said that vehicles no longer have armour value facings and share the same statline as everything else it wasn't clear enough?
No, as they could have a bespoke rules stating that their toughness or save is diminished by 1 if you attack them from the rear. As I said before, there were pretty strong indications that they were removed, but nothing as clear as the last answer
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Funny that "I'm dying for more faction focuses". IF you are so eager why wait? Just go to web store and look at bunch of units of faction of your choise. You get 100% same info out of it!
Split fire by model confirmed. Well this has been long pretty much confirmed so today's post basically just removed the off chance it wasn't going to change.
Multiple LOW detachment pretty much quaranteed.
Indeed. Let's be serious for a second, nobody is exited for more faction focus if they are as shallow as the CSM one
Tanks and monsters don't have facing values, but maybe they will put a rule in the shooting that gives you a bonus for shooting in the back.
Personally, I don't like that kind of thing, because in a game without proper base models specified to every unit, and with free to model your units as you want, conversion works, etc... it can become very tricky.
In other games like Infinity you have facing values because your bases normally are marked properly, so the actual facing of the model is irrelevant. But 40K didn't have that.
I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.
And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.
I don't want to sound mean but...
How can evidence be provided when we know nothing about the wraithlord at this point? It could have more wounds, move farther, or cost less now. Even its weapon options may have different rend or damage values associated with them to differentiate. Run a maulerfiend for a few games and come back and say that walkers shouldn't get the same treatment wraithlords have had.
This is a great point in this argument. Using the single Dread as an example ignores the fact that a Wraithknight mauls specific close combat walkers in close combat, despite having access to shooting (like the dread), and it doesn't really need to give up its CC effectiveness to take guns (unlike a dread). But I mean what is the good balance and fluff argument that a Wraithlord (for equal or less points) should trash things like maulerfiends, Deff Dreads etc. While also being more durable against most shooting, being able to shoot etc. These models that have similar roles should be relatively equal if they are costed relatively equally. It shouldn't be that one is clearly superior to the other. Lets take the wraithlord out of the picture, what about the riptide? It is superior/equal to a dread in CC right now and far better at shooting. There is literally no good argument for being upset that some of your units are slightly worse respective to other units. If you in any way hope (like I do) that all units will be good at their combat role for their points cost.
streetsamurai wrote: So they pretty much confirmed that facings are removed from the game. A shame
That was confirmed multiple times before too. It's just that people refused to accept it until now.
Not really. They were indications that it was going to be removed, but nothing as clear as the answer in that Q&A
So when they showed the Dreadnought statline, the Morkanaught statline and said that vehicles no longer have armour value facings and share the same statline as everything else it wasn't clear enough?
No, as they could have a bespoke rules stating that their toughness or save is diminished by 1 if you attack them from the rear. As I said before, there were pretty strong indications that they were removed, but nothing as clear as the last answer
Those would be covered under rules for shooting more than the stat lines for the model.
Anyone mind nudging the Q&A about FW's large set of characters? Can we expect to see the Badab War characters (who mostly never got models), the Imperial guard tank characters, or the large number of HH characters who don't have models or were only limited edition?
Galas wrote: Tanks and monsters don't have facing values, but maybe they will put a rule in the shooting that gives you a bonus for shooting in the back.
Personally, I don't like that kind of thing, because in a game without proper base models specified to every unit, and with free to model your units as you want, conversion works, etc... it can become very tricky.
In other games like Infinity you have facing values because your bases normally are marked properly, so the actual facing of the model is irrelevant. But 40K didn't have that.
Agreed. With non-standard models it becomes a nightmare and only serves to tell people to not convert or dynamically pose their models.
torblind wrote:Wonder what Necrons will get to compensate for gauss now being everywhere. Shred would be nice, Tank Hunter perhaps more fluffy (ie reroll to wounds against vehicles, if there is such a distinction)
I would guess something similar to what some Death units get in AoS. 6s to hit cause mortal wounds.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I'd guess +1 Dam on rolls to wound of 6.
torblind wrote:Wonder what Necrons will get to compensate for gauss now being everywhere. Shred would be nice, Tank Hunter perhaps more fluffy (ie reroll to wounds against vehicles, if there is such a distinction)
I would guess something similar to what some Death units get in AoS. 6s to hit cause mortal wounds.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I'd guess +1 Dam on rolls to wound of 6.
Or that.
Ugh. I'm hoping Mortal Wounds on basic army weapons don't become a thing. *glares at Shuriken weapons*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: In a d6 based game, I don't think I like the 'everything can would anything' approach here.
I didn't have a problem with the "N" designation on the old S vs. T charts...
You can make a chart, but this simplifies the chart down to the same sort of questions we asked to determine what we needed to roll to wound.
Alpharius wrote: In a d6 based game, I don't think I like the 'everything can would anything' approach here.
I didn't have a problem with the "N" designation on the old S vs. T charts...
Same, I dislike the lack of variation and decision making that causes. Just more about letting people not worry as much about list building or tactical decisions imo when a bolter has the same probability to NOT wound a cardboard box as it does to wound a battle titan...
Alpharius wrote: In a d6 based game, I don't think I like the 'everything can would anything' approach here.
I didn't have a problem with the "N" designation on the old S vs. T charts...
I can see the appeal with that. But the other side of that coin, is that many many units and many many weapons become irrelevant in many battles. With the "everything can wound everything"; many things become viable, and in general, the invulnerable deathstar become less powerfull. And to me is still tactical. Wheres the tactic when you literally can't hurt something? When you can hurt everything but with great difference in value for your shoots, you gain the tactical deep of choosing what to shoot, and when, even if you can hurt anything. If of 3 units you can only hurt 1, then wheres the tactical deep there? You have none. You only shoot the unit you can hurt.
This come to personal preference, and how you value the pros vs the cons of every approach.
This come to personal preference, and how you value the pros vs the cons of every approach.
The problem with deathstars was never about being unable to wound it.. The issue was the saving throws and re-rolls.
All add to the problem, really. Personally, in a game that plays in the scale of 40k, I prefer the "everything can hurt everything" approach. The "Oh, your heavy weapons teams are death, you literally can't hurt my tanks/knights with anything you have left. Go home" is a hyperbole, but is a reflection of the gameplay that can evolve with the approach that only X things can hurt Y things. You have many many units/weapons that are useless/redundant.
I value the List-building aspect, but I don't like the hard paper-rock-scissor gameplay, like Warmachines. I like to make my decissions in the actual battle, focusing fire and distributing my weapons to engage the enemy in the most optimal way possible. When you have things that can't literally hurt other things, really the tactical deep is less. You know "I have to face his tank with THIS unit, and only this can hurt it."
That split fire rule can really become handy. I assume that we won't have to fire at the squad we want to charge. So you could theoretically fire your bolters at those firewarriors, your plasmaguns at the crisis suits and then attack those stealth suits nearby. You fired all your shots without having to risk increasing your charge distance.
This come to personal preference, and how you value the pros vs the cons of every approach.
The problem with deathstars was never about being unable to wound it.. The issue was the saving throws and re-rolls.
All add to the problem, really. Personally, in a game that plays in the scale of 40k, I prefer the "everything can hurt everything" approach. The "Oh, your heavy weapons teams are death, you literally can't hurt my tanks/knights with anything you have left. Go home" is a hyperbole, but is a reflection of the gameplay that can evolve with the approach that only X things can hurt Y things. You have many many units/weapons that are useless/redundant.
I value the List-building aspect, but I don't like the hard paper-rock-scissor gameplay, like Warmachines. I like to make my decissions in the actual battle, focusing fire and distributing my weapons to engage the enemy in the most optimal way possible. When you have things that can't literally hurt other things, really the tactical deep is less. You know "I have to face his tank with THIS unit, and only this can hurt it."
Deathstars are units. Last time I checked not many of those if any had really T7/T8+ so even lasgun could wound those deathstars.
Deathstars are deathstars cause they had tons of wounds, 2+ rerollable, maybe 2++ rerollable, FNP, look out sirs for wounds that hurt characters etc.
Not because lasgun couldn't hurt land raider. Vehicles unsurprisingly were not part of unit.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Anyone mind nudging the Q&A about FW's large set of characters? Can we expect to see the Badab War characters (who mostly never got models), the Imperial guard tank characters, or the large number of HH characters who don't have models or were only limited edition?
I'd suspect that those would come later (if ever) as they're not a priority. To get just the in print models stat'ed out and costed/balanced approrpriately is already enough of an effort in the short term considering the official company line just a week ago was basically "i dunno... maybe... eventually" on getting FW support in the short term for 8th edition. The cynic in me would point out that them promising rules for models they *currently* sell would still be true even if they removed dozens of poorly selling/unpopular characters/models from the storefront just prior to the rules release.
This come to personal preference, and how you value the pros vs the cons of every approach.
The problem with deathstars was never about being unable to wound it.. The issue was the saving throws and re-rolls.
All add to the problem, really. Personally, in a game that plays in the scale of 40k, I prefer the "everything can hurt everything" approach. The "Oh, your heavy weapons teams are death, you literally can't hurt my tanks/knights with anything you have left. Go home" is a hyperbole, but is a reflection of the gameplay that can evolve with the approach that only X things can hurt Y things. You have many many units/weapons that are useless/redundant.
I value the List-building aspect, but I don't like the hard paper-rock-scissor gameplay, like Warmachines. I like to make my decissions in the actual battle, focusing fire and distributing my weapons to engage the enemy in the most optimal way possible. When you have things that can't literally hurt other things, really the tactical deep is less. You know "I have to face his tank with THIS unit, and only this can hurt it."
Deathstars are units. Last time I checked not many of those if any had really T7/T8+ so even lasgun could wound those deathstars.
Deathstars are deathstars cause they had tons of wounds, 2+ rerollable, maybe 2++ rerollable, FNP, look out sirs for wounds that hurt characters etc.
Not because lasgun couldn't hurt land raider. Vehicles unsurprisingly were not part of unit.
I concede it to you, deathstar where not a problem of things that can't hurt other things.
But you are focusing in the deathstar thing, that is a mere footnote rather than in my argument about why "Everything can hurt everything in different manners" is actually more tactical in the battle and offer more real choices, rather than a hard rock-paper-scissor list-building focused game.
Alpharius wrote: It also feels too abstract and game-y, for an admittedly sci-fantasy unrealistic setting, I know!
Thats the problem here. People want a game that is not as focus on list-building. People want a more balanced game. But you can't have that with a very realistic game, even in a fantasy setting.
Yeah, Knights should be totally inmune to a horde of grots, orks boyzs with flamers and anti light-infantry weapons. Thats fluffy and is narrative. But is also unfun and unbalanced.
We need to be realistic with what we want about the game, and if the things we like are opposite to the direction we want the game to follow.
My favourite type of games, are the hard-narrative ones, where unbalanced gameplay is a thing, because thats the fun. Where 20 marines face 300 tyranids, where a Giant can just fall on top of your Orc Warboss in the first turn because he is drunk, etc... but all of that is totally impossible to have with a balanced and fun competitive game. And thats is what the mayority of people want 40k to be. Not at the level of Infinity and Warmachine( that are the other opossite, as hard-core competitive games, very game-y) but with a mix of narrative feeling but still fun and competitive game.
I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.
And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.
I don't want to sound mean but...
How can evidence be provided when we know nothing about the wraithlord at this point? It could have more wounds, move farther, or cost less now. Even its weapon options may have different rend or damage values associated with them to differentiate. Run a maulerfiend for a few games and come back and say that walkers shouldn't get the same treatment wraithlords have had.
You (and a few others that have pointed out the same) are absolutely right. I've gotten ahead of myself. I can't say with any certainty that the WL won't have some other changes to compensate for the changes we do know about. I may be pleasantly surprised...
Let's forget about the WL specifically for a moment. As stated, this one thing I see as a flaw could later be mitigated by other rules that make it even more OP. But the reason I think this is a flaw is more than just because it affects one model - in the long run, if WLs do lose enough utility that myself and others stop fielding them, they will be replaced by something - and that something could be War Walkers, which will now be getting the exact same treatment in reverse. They will no longer be AV 10 but probably something like T5 or T6 (depending on how those values stack up against others). One unit exits the stage, another walks on. The difference is that my Eldar army as a whole just effectively lost a possible selection.
Right now there is probably a SM player who really likes his Dreads to configured a specific way. For examples let's say he likes having a power fist and a heavy bolter. Now let's say that a different SM player prefers her dreads to be a ranged support unit and likes to configure them with a missile launcher and an assault cannon. Sounds plausible right? Different players getting a different utility or battlefield function out of the same or similar units? Not outside the realm of reality? Now let's say that GW 'condenses' the rules so that all dreads are static - they all have the same power fist and heavy bolter. Well for the first player this isn't a problem because that's how he likes it. But for player 2 - that model no longer fulfils the rule she needs it to on the table. She is out one model. She may or may not be able to find similar performance from another model in her army list.
Now let's return to that WL again. my own language betrays me here because I have stated previously that I consistently defeat similar models due to it's superiority. The reality here is that the model isn't superior - it was just used correctly. It would be like me saying that I always defeated my enemy's devastator squad by deploying my own squad of Assault Marines. it doesn't mean that assault marines are superior to devastators - they are counter to them. They are designed almost explicitly for that role. They are probably less performant in other areas and can't protect my font line from enemy armor. They are rock to somebody's scissors.
My issue isn't that the WL is not uber cool anymore and can't just wafflestomp my buddy's dreadnaughts, the reason that sucks is because that is exactly what the WL is supposed to do. It was tailored for cracking open hard targets. Like another unit, it fell into the rock-paper-scissors triangle just fine. The paper to its rock was poisoned weapons. DE players just laughed at it - so did SM scouts on occasion.
Now - putting the cart ahead of the horse again - without knowing what positive treatment the WL may or may not get, my concern (as it has been) is that this seems like a reduction in value. I am losing a tank-buster and just getting a tank instead, which my army list already has some of.
I don't know, I mean Iron Devil is a story about a platoon of Guardsmen fighting a Morkanaut. Just because anything can hurt anything it doesn't make it "unfluffy".
We also had an Ork character before 6th canned him who killed a Titan by charging his bike through it's face.
Frankly the new mechanic better supports the lore than the old one did.
I can't help but laugh at this argument regarding the Wraithlord, in 7th it's a horribly inefficient unit for both shooting and CC to the point where the Dreadnaught is actually a better option. And I'm not talking inefficient when compared to Jetbikes but pretty much everything else in the codex as well (and contrary to popular opinion the whole codex wasn't overpowered, just a select few units).
spiralingcadaver wrote: Anyone mind nudging the Q&A about FW's large set of characters? Can we expect to see the Badab War characters (who mostly never got models), the Imperial guard tank characters, or the large number of HH characters who don't have models or were only limited edition?
I'd suspect that those would come later (if ever) as they're not a priority. To get just the in print models stat'ed out and costed/balanced approrpriately is already enough of an effort in the short term considering the official company line just a week ago was basically "i dunno... maybe... eventually" on getting FW support in the short term for 8th edition. The cynic in me would point out that them promising rules for models they *currently* sell would still be true even if they removed dozens of poorly selling/unpopular characters/models from the storefront just prior to the rules release.
They've been saying from day 1 that FW models will be get rules on release of 8th, it' only for the Horus Heresy that it'll be a while before they switch editions.
I value the List-building aspect, but I don't like the hard paper-rock-scissor gameplay, like Warmachines. I like to make my decissions in the actual battle, focusing fire and distributing my weapons to engage the enemy in the most optimal way possible. When you have things that can't literally hurt other things, really the tactical deep is less. You know "I have to face his tank with THIS unit, and only this can hurt it."
Totally agree with the above.
List building shouldn't be so decisive in game outcome as it is now. When your reaction at deployment when you see models being placed on the table across from you is along the lines of "I can't do anything about that", the game is (imo) broken. Gimmicky lists currently dominate the game. and one way to tone that down is by making all models a bit more relevant.
I'm quite intrigued by the new list building system they've put together - command benefits sound like a fun way to add tactical depth while also balancing the list building shenanigans. Looking forward to hearing more about them.
Mr Morden wrote: Now that GW have finally managed to start producing card packs for their armies - this should become even easier.
I haven't played a real game since 6th. Since when was this? Is 8th edition going to have a pack of cards I can buy for all of my units in the same vein as Warmachine?
So far they have produced several army packs for AOS - one assumes they will do the same for new 40k
Much excite. Doing this has always been on my shortlist for nifty hobby projects but all of that terrain isn't gonna build itself. glad to hear I won't need to print 25 pages of unit rules to set up a game.
Galas wrote: Thats the problem here. People want a game that is not as focus on list-building. People want a more balanced game. But you can't have that with a very realistic game, even in a fantasy setting.
Balance and realism aren't self-excluding if you have game designers who knows their job. GW just doesn't hire those.
If other games can be both logical and realistic AND balanced why not GW...
Imateria wrote: I can't help but laugh at this argument regarding the Wraithlord, in 7th it's a horribly inefficient unit for both shooting and CC to the point where the Dreadnaught is actually a better option. And I'm not talking inefficient when compared to Jetbikes but pretty much everything else in the codex as well (and contrary to popular opinion the whole codex wasn't overpowered, just a select few units).
[\quote]
I REALLY shot myself in the foot with my statement about regularly defeating dreadnaughts with my WL. I regret saying it now. the intent of that statement was not to illustrate that WLs were super OP and just laughed at the competition, but to demonstrate how effectively that unit served its dedicated role. I obviously failed to iterate that clearly enough.
Regardless, between the point premium (which was significant) and the inherent weaknesses (poison, instant death, force weapons, etc) that applied to the WLs and not to the dreads, the argument IMO made itself. That utility is gone now and time will tell what if anything replaces it.
On a happier note - while I am still troubled by that model in particular, it does seem to be the only major drawback to the changes that I have read. the rest of the alternations seem to be very positive. I am excited to see the renewed interest in close combat, even if only in emphasis it should be a return to form for more seasoned players. Though I feel like multiple overwatches in a turn, combined with split fire may work against that - we'll see.
Galas wrote: Thats the problem here. People want a game that is not as focus on list-building. People want a more balanced game. But you can't have that with a very realistic game, even in a fantasy setting.
Balance and realism aren't self-excluding if you have game designers who knows their job. GW just doesn't hire those.
If other games can be both logical and realistic AND balanced why not GW...
Because those other games have a different mentality, they don't want to offer the ammount of variation that Warhammer games want to offer. If you don't believe me that GW can do it... just look the LOTR system. A realistic, streamlined, and the most balanced system GW has ever done. But is a game with a different mentality, with much less variation and much less "fluffy/fantasy" feeling to it. A logic thing because LOTR is a fantasy setting quasi historical.
And before anyone jump to use the argument... NO, I'm not excusing GW poor poor balance of 40k and Fantasy. I was just talking about the mentality, and what you wan't you games to offer. Don't all the games want to cover the same things to the player. And is important to know what want to achieve a game, or what we want it to achieve.
If people want to have ALL the variation that 40k offer, to be capable of using ALL their armies, being those a full Imperial Knight army or a Full Deathwathc Army or a Full Bike Spam Army or a full Imperial Guard conscript army, etc... you have to put asside many of the more fluffy and realistic aspects of the game, and go with game-y solutions to achieve balance.
And I'll repeat it. In fact, I prefer other games with a more narrative focus, but one has to be realistic with the scale, options, etc... of 40k.
I am really excited for these changes, once again. The new Wound chart seems great. I like the flattening of effectiveness of middle-tier Str 5-7 weapons. Space Marines and even T3 Eldar gain durability against these weapons, but these weapons also gain a slight boost against T8 and T9. Weapon profiles seem to offer some truly interesting variability. I can't wait to start list building.
For that matter, Split Fire offers lots of choices for how you load out your units and how you engage the enemy in shooting. Do you split your heavy weapons up to protect them from attacks - and maybe be more susceptible to the -1 to hit from moving, because you have more models that need to move? Or do you risk your heavy weapon in a dedicated HW team? Do you take a range of weapons for different threats?
Just wanted to also throw my opinion on Galas' side: LotR is one of the most balanced (and fun!) games i've tried.
Someone should ask them how void shields will work, if it will just be extra wounds that regenerate or what.
Personally I hope certain results on the Vehicle degradation chart reduce their toughness or armor save, to represent chunks of armor being blown off.
As far as weapons with D6 wounds, tha makes plenty of sense with antitank weaponry versus vehicles. No two penetrating hits on a vehicle will have the same result. Some take out tracks, some plink harmlessly off armor, some take out crucial crew or systems, and some ignite ammunition and take out half the vehicle in a glorious fireball. D6 damage and the degradation table seem like a less random way to show the unpredictable nature of things beating the crap out of a tank.
Alpharius wrote: In a d6 based game, I don't think I like the 'everything can would anything' approach here.
I didn't have a problem with the "N" designation on the old S vs. T charts...
Same, I dislike the lack of variation and decision making that causes. Just more about letting people not worry as much about list building or tactical decisions imo when a bolter has the same probability to NOT wound a cardboard box as it does to wound a battle titan...
It works exactly the same. If you don't bring weapons specialized to kill large models you straight up won't. Look at the morkanaut, how many bolter shots do you need to kill it? 18 wounds 3+ save 3s to hit, 6s to wound is 485 bolter shots. You would have to dedicate and ENTIRE gladius of bolter fire to JUST the morkanaut for 4 turns(you're not getting rapid fire first turn) and meanwhile pray that the rest of your opponents army sucks enough that you can afford to shoot for 4 turns without reducing incoming firepower.
Basically if you think that basic infantry weapon is a catch all against everything now I pray we meet in a tournament because it's a free win for me.
Alpharius wrote: It also feels too abstract and game-y, for an admittedly sci-fantasy unrealistic setting, I know!
Yeah, Knights should be totally inmune to a horde of grots, orks boyzs with flamers and anti light-infantry weapons
Should they be? They're not fast enough to stomp out a swarm of goblins that can crawl up the legs and break stuff or suicide themselves on joints.
Guy in another thread did the math on it, you literally cannot pack enough grots into the 12" range of their pistol to kill a knight in less than three turns and then you still need the knight to sit there and take it the whole time.
edit: maths, it's actually worse, I was doing 5 up save
Badablack wrote: Someone should ask them how void shields will work, if it will just be extra wounds that regenerate or what.
Personally I hope certain results on the Vehicle degradation chart reduce their toughness or armor save, to represent chunks of armor being blown off.
As far as weapons with D6 wounds, tha makes plenty of sense with antitank weaponry versus vehicles. No two penetrating hits on a vehicle will have the same result. Some take out tracks, some plink harmlessly off armor, some take out crucial crew or systems, and some ignite ammunition and take out half the vehicle in a glorious fireball. D6 damage and the degradation table seem like a less random way to show the unpredictable nature of things beating the crap out of a tank.
I'm sure the fantasy or role-playing element of it can be explained in a number of ways, but (all other things remaining constant) this would still be a huge net loss for vehicle durability overall.
The problem is that all other things will not remain equal. We don't yet know how many wounds our vehicles will have. Will rhinos have the same W value as Predators? (same chasis) or as demolishers? How will they compare to land speeders and dreadnaughts, or land raiders.
Perhaps more importantly, since they have already stated that vehicles will suffer reduced performance as they drop wounds, what will that look like? Will a dreadnaught with only half its wounds remaining move slower? Fire one less weapon? Will it hit or wound with penalties to the roll? How will that work for tanks?
Badablack wrote: Someone should ask them how void shields will work, if it will just be extra wounds that regenerate or what.
I'm going to guess their response:
"Good question! Stay tuned to this space, and you might learn what they do soon!"
Personally I hope certain results on the Vehicle degradation chart reduce their toughness or armor save, to represent chunks of armor being blown off.
While that may happen for some of the larger critters, we know for a fact that that doesn't happen to the Morkanaut. Its degradation chart is released, and its armor doesn't get reduced at all.
I suspect we might see that sort of degradation for the more heavily-armored large critters like Riptides, Dreadknights, Landraiders, and the like.
As far as weapons with D6 wounds, tha makes plenty of sense with antitank weaponry versus vehicles. No two penetrating hits on a vehicle will have the same result. Some take out tracks, some plink harmlessly off armor, some take out crucial crew or systems, and some ignite ammunition and take out half the vehicle in a glorious fireball. D6 damage and the degradation table seem like a less random way to show the unpredictable nature of things beating the crap out of a tank.
I'm with you on that. Drastically increasing wound counts gives GW the design space to allow EVERYTHING the chance to do SOME damage, while still retaining the specialized role (and efficiency of use) for anti-tank weapons to do their thing.
Basically if you think that basic infantry weapon is a catch all against everything now I pray we meet in a tournament because it's a free win for me..
I agree with this over all, but I can't help but notice how much this makes mid-strength high rate of fire weapons a good "catch all" Especially if those weapons have an AP of at least -1.
I think the best TAC armies will have loads of low-mid strength shots will a few Lascannon-like weapons that either do D3/D6 wounds or even do Mortal Wounds
I anticipate Eldar to continue to be a strong army as Shuiken weapons are likely to be AP -1 (or cause Mortal wounds on a 6 to wound) and Distort weapons will very likely cause D3/D6 Mortal Wounds (as a replacement of D).
The degradation chart might also have interesting twists for certain models as well that don't just have to do with reductions in Attacks, Move, and BS/WS. Imagine a Riptide that gets damage to their Nova Reactor as they take wounds - making it harder or more dangerous to use.
Alpharius wrote: Galas brings up a good point - some amount of 'realism' (Ha!) probably has to be sacrificed for the greater good balance!
In a game where all of this can fight at the same time, yeah.
Spoiler:
And thats why I said months ago that the biggest reason why 40k is so unbalanced, is that it has lost his scale. You can't have infantry that you count in 1:1 basis (Not platoons like Epic) fighting Titans without a very game-y sistem to achieve some kind of balance.
You're clearly seeing fewer "hard choices". You don't have to worry too much about what you shoot at - you can hurt everything at least some, and you can divide your fire. You don't really have to sweat choosing between moving and firing unless you're a Loota. Vehicle facing? Shrug. List building? Take what you want mostly (I see this as a good thing).
40K's never been that deep a tactical game, and many things that were meant to add a depth (like psychic dice pools) never worked very well. Still, I'd rather they kept some depth beyond - "Hey, you might be able to jimmy your model placement in assault to consolidate into other units".
On the up side, it should help them with game balance. But if they still manage to screw up game balance it will be really, really awful, because there are no rock paper scissors elements to counteract OP stuff. At least now Landraiders counter Scat bikes, for example.
Basically if you think that basic infantry weapon is a catch all against everything now I pray we meet in a tournament because it's a free win for me..
I agree with this over all, but I can't help but notice how much this makes mid-strength high rate of fire weapons a good "catch all" Especially if those weapons have an AP of at least -1.
I think the best TAC armies will have loads of low-mid strength shots will a few Lascannon-like weapons that either do D3/D6 wounds or even do Mortal Wounds
I anticipate Eldar to continue to be a strong army as Shuiken weapons are likely to be AP -1 (or cause Mortal wounds on a 6 to wound) and Distort weapons will very likely cause D3/D6 Mortal Wounds (as a replacement of D).
-
I wouldn't jumpt the gun there. If bikes also have -1 penalty to hit when moving and shooting heavy weapons, and scat lasers remain s6, they would be hitting marines on 4's and wounding on 3's. Same with shurikan canons, but not catapults which makes all the options worthy now. That would make those weapons much more balanced.
rollawaythestone wrote: Just wanted to also throw my opinion on Galas' side: LotR is one of the most balanced (and fun!) games i've tried.
Yeah well guess even GW can do it if they cut lots of stuff. Doesn't excuse them for not being able to do with more complex game like others can do.
Complex=/=Good. In fact, I would argue that complexity is something that should be used sparingly. You want a game with DEPTH, and game that gives you plenty of decisions to make, but is relatively simple to pick up. 7th failed at booth;it was largely impenetrable for new players and at the same time had very little in the way of strategic content(largely due to poor balance)
And while other games can get away with more 'complexity' in their rules, they limit flexibility in exchange. Malifaux puts most of an armies power on 1 or 2 models and uses keywords to limit what interacts with each other ON TOP of being a <10 model skirmish game. Infinity limits the variation between weapons and factions and is, again, a skirmish game. Warmahordes has somewhat comparable amount of options as 40k does but has to shed the narrative aspect almost entirely for sake of balance. They use 2d terrain.
Every game has to give something up for balance whether it's scale, narrative, freedom of choice, etc. With 7th GW chose to give nothing up and make the problems progressively worse, with 8th it looks like they're making small concession in the part of the game that LEAST applies to 40k realism. (If realism in 40k ever mattered to you...I feel like you wouldn't of stuck around this long.)
While I'm somewhat more concerned for the safety of my dreadnoughts now that bolters can wound them on a 5... I think that the return of split fire will actually help this somewhat. Because while small arms can potentially wound vehicles now, allowing units to split fire means that there should generally be better targets for them.
So while I'm still not entirely sold on the 'everything can wound everything' system, in actual practice I think the situations where you're actually going to be chipping away at vehicles with lasguns are likely to be fairly rare, or at the very least will be just the bit towards the end of the game where all of the better targets are gone and you're throwing the dice because you might as well...
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.
It works much better in practice than you may think.
if someone know how to speed things up
for other it will be time consuming and slow the game unnecessary down
split by weapon groups would be faster
Not really even in the worst possible scenario I can think of with a combined guard squad of 5 squads. My 5 lascannons go into the MC at the other end of the board, my 5 melta guns go into the transport in range, my 35-40ish lasgun guardsmen shoot into at most the 1-2 infantry squads in range and I choose to split them between them both and risk removing neither or shot them into one. I doubt there will be more then 2 targets in range and worth splitting up my lasguns shots further as it risks removing nothing.
Hmm not sure I'm over keen on the new infantry shooting rules allowing individual models to pick their target. That could really bog the game down if someone decides to roll for each model individually to maximise damage especially if you wanted to draw out for a long winded draw.
I think I would have preferred that models with the same weapons all have to shoot at the same target
Basically if you think that basic infantry weapon is a catch all against everything now I pray we meet in a tournament because it's a free win for me..
I agree with this over all, but I can't help but notice how much this makes mid-strength high rate of fire weapons a good "catch all" Especially if those weapons have an AP of at least -1.
I think the best TAC armies will have loads of low-mid strength shots will a few Lascannon-like weapons that either do D3/D6 wounds or even do Mortal Wounds
I anticipate Eldar to continue to be a strong army as Shuiken weapons are likely to be AP -1 (or cause Mortal wounds on a 6 to wound) and Distort weapons will very likely cause D3/D6 Mortal Wounds (as a replacement of D).
-
I would put money on shuriken weapons being ap0 with rend -1 on 6s. And actually I think we'll see S5 and S6 weapons be much less useful than they are now. Keep in mind a scatterlaser as it is now would be wounding a dread on a 5+ and bouncing off the 3+ save, and who's to say those profiles even look like that anymore? A scatter laser could be a single shot, or a lower strength, or be much more expensive.
The power of mid-strength shooting is something that became problematic in 7th and could definitely be an issue in 8th but is also something that could be solved by unit side balancing.
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.
It works much better in practice than you may think.
if someone know how to speed things up
for other it will be time consuming and slow the game unnecessary down
split by weapon groups would be faster
Not really even in the worst possible scenario I can think of with a combined guard squad of 5 squads. My 5 lascannons go into the MC at the other end of the board, my 5 melta guns go into the transport in range, my 35-40ish lasgun guardsmen shoot into at most the 1-2 infantry squads in range and I choose to split them between them both and risk removing neither or shot them into one. I doubt there will be more then 2 targets in range and worth splitting up my lasguns shots further as it risks removing nothing.
And that is the worst case scenario. A tac marine squad only splits off the heavy really.
Yeah well guess even GW can do it if they cut lots of stuff. Doesn't excuse them for not being able to do with more complex game like others can do.
You seem to keep referencing how other companies offer complex, realistic games. Can we get some examples, specifically of the mechanics you're arguing for?
I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.
And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.
I don't want to sound mean but...
How can evidence be provided when we know nothing about the wraithlord at this point? It could have more wounds, move farther, or cost less now. Even its weapon options may have different rend or damage values associated with them to differentiate. Run a maulerfiend for a few games and come back and say that walkers shouldn't get the same treatment wraithlords have had.
This is a great point in this argument. Using the single Dread as an example ignores the fact that a Wraithknight mauls specific close combat walkers in close combat, despite having access to shooting (like the dread), and it doesn't really need to give up its CC effectiveness to take guns (unlike a dread). But I mean what is the good balance and fluff argument that a Wraithlord (for equal or less points) should trash things like maulerfiends, Deff Dreads etc. While also being more durable against most shooting, being able to shoot etc. These models that have similar roles should be relatively equal if they are costed relatively equally. It shouldn't be that one is clearly superior to the other. Lets take the wraithlord out of the picture, what about the riptide? It is superior/equal to a dread in CC right now and far better at shooting. There is literally no good argument for being upset that some of your units are slightly worse respective to other units. If you in any way hope (like I do) that all units will be good at their combat role for their points cost.
Annnnnddddd a swing and a miss from the peanut gallery, starts ranting about wraithknights and then switches to wrathlords to make his argument fit the facts being discussed. I got to ask show me on the dolly we're the bad elder touched you, also are you a marine player? Do you think Tau should be totally removed from the game? Just checking because I have noticed a correlation.
Ahhh I really give up we know have people arguing that gak game design should be excused because it's hard and that despite the evidence of litterally every other war game made that complex rules/realisim cannot be done in a balanced game. sorry that issue is a GW issue.
I am out I give up ... I know Lord K will have some free time now.
I Sean Drake do fully recant all negative opinions of GW and the parts of 8th shown and humble thank the chosen in this thread for leading my away from my heretical beliefs to promised nirvana of perfection that is 8th.
Further I no longer feel that AoS is the most shallow wargame ever gak out in one weekend on a sheet of a4 with little to no redeeming qualities other than being able to play it while blind drunk, lobotomised or both. Also the fluff in no way is ripped off Planescape,MTG and Numeneria and is both highly original and did not make a good cure for insomnia(except that one that was a knock off of the early wfb it was ok).
Or... he just mixed it up at the beginning? It's been done before, and here everyone was only talking about the wraithlord until wraithknight was mentioned once, then you swoop in with that commentary.
insaniak wrote: While I'm somewhat more concerned for the safety of my dreadnoughts now that bolters can wound them on a 5... I think that the return of split fire will actually help this somewhat. Because while small arms can potentially wound vehicles now, allowing units to split fire means that there should generally be better targets for them.
So while I'm still not entirely sold on the 'everything can wound everything' system, in actual practice I think the situations where you're actually going to be chipping away at vehicles with lasguns are likely to be fairly rare, or at the very least will be just the bit towards the end of the game where all of the better targets are gone and you're throwing the dice because you might as well...
This is exactly how it works in practice. The system is meant to always let you do something while punishing you for being inefficient. That way you don't end up with a situation where you're playing a knight army but all you have left are heavy bolters and flamers for specials so you just concede.
So with facings gone, is it fair to assume that those terribly complicated devils we call "weapon mountings and fire arcs" are gone too? Because I can't really see all vehicles shooting effectively function like shooting from an open top transport improving the game. Baby out with the bath water as usual.
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Hmmm, I like the idea but that could get a bit micro managment-y.
It works much better in practice than you may think.
if someone know how to speed things up
for other it will be time consuming and slow the game unnecessary down
split by weapon groups would be faster
Not really even in the worst possible scenario I can think of with a combined guard squad of 5 squads. My 5 lascannons go into the MC at the other end of the board, my 5 melta guns go into the transport in range, my 35-40ish lasgun guardsmen shoot into at most the 1-2 infantry squads in range and I choose to split them between them both and risk removing neither or shot them into one. I doubt there will be more then 2 targets in range and worth splitting up my lasguns shots further as it risks removing nothing.
this is you
there are players out there that need the same time for moving 20 Bikes as other ones for 100 Orks
if such a player has the possibility to fire each Bolter on a different target he will take his time to maximise the damage as with the battleshock system you can take a lot of time to calculate the best way to split fire
What if you play both? I personally dont think WLs are even that scary. Grav just annihilates them, so do missiles, and plasma. Plenty of things every marine army in the world brings. Yes, they are good in h2h (4 attacks on the charge vs your dreads 5 though), and sure their shooting is good (6 scatter laser shots), but they cost 55 or more points than your dread. What did you expect?
And that is the worst case scenario. A tac marine squad only splits off the heavy really.
Na man, two combat squads. One with Lazcannon, other with meltagun, captain with combi melta.
Thats two metalguns that can fire at someone, two grenades that can be thrown, a lazcannon that can be fired downrange and te remaining bolters firing at two seperate squads.
Thats two metalguns that can fire at someone, two grenades that can be thrown, a lazcannon that can be fired downrange and te remaining bolters firing at two seperate squads.
.
it is per model not weapon group, a tac squad can fire at 10 different targets if you want to
Basically if you think that basic infantry weapon is a catch all against everything now I pray we meet in a tournament because it's a free win for me..
I agree with this over all, but I can't help but notice how much this makes mid-strength high rate of fire weapons a good "catch all" Especially if those weapons have an AP of at least -1.
I think the best TAC armies will have loads of low-mid strength shots will a few Lascannon-like weapons that either do D3/D6 wounds or even do Mortal Wounds
I anticipate Eldar to continue to be a strong army as Shuiken weapons are likely to be AP -1 (or cause Mortal wounds on a 6 to wound) and Distort weapons will very likely cause D3/D6 Mortal Wounds (as a replacement of D).
-
You're going to need high AP anti-infantry weapons as well - not just for tanks. Marines in cover will ruin your day.
this is you
there are players out there that need the same time for moving 20 Bikes as other ones for 100 Orks
if such a player has the possibility to fire each Bolter on a different target he will take his time to maximise the damage as with the battleshock system you can take a lot of time to calculate the best way to split fire
The rules will not work that way. You pick your targets, decide how to split, and then resolve the shooting. There is no, "ok is he dead? no. Then I'll shoot one more".
This also means the same unit can't pop a transport and then shoot the occupants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: So with facings gone, is it fair to assume that those terribly complicated devils we call "weapon mountings and fire arcs" are gone too? Because I can't really see all vehicles shooting effectively function like shooting from an open top transport improving the game. Baby out with the bath water as usual.
I would believe so, yes. The tank could be looking the other way and still shoot behind itself. That's sort of the AoS thing - "don't worry about that stuff". Not that you would face the tank directly away anyway...
Thats two metalguns that can fire at someone, two grenades that can be thrown, a lazcannon that can be fired downrange and te remaining bolters firing at two seperate squads.
.
it is per model not weapon group, a tac squad can fire at 10 different targets if you want to
The rules will not work that way. You pick your targets, decide how to split, and then resolve the shooting. There is no, "ok is he dead? no. Then I'll shoot one more".
never said that it work different, and this is why some people will take a lot of time before a unit shoots
as you need to say which model takes which target you should calculate how to get the most out of it, instead of just shoot model by model and see what happens
Hmmm. Devastators became more useful since they can blast away at multiple things. Less chance for overkill on something. I hope Imperial Fists get a nice bonus with them (since armor penetration isn't a thing anymore, perhaps they will reroll to wound?).
If they don't give IF a bonus to firing bolt weapons (+1 to hit?), I will probably add a heavy weapon into each of my Sternguard Squads. I am leaning Multi-Melta in the Combi-Melta Squad and Grav Cannon in the Combi-Grav Squad. I run smaller Tactical Squads so I won't be adding a heavy there.
Overall, a nice update. The chart is fairly easy to memorize. Split fire is going to be fun.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Hmmm. Devastators became more useful since they can blast away at multiple things. Less chance for overkill on something.
Less chance for overkill, but also more chance of not killing your target because you judged your shots wrong. If you have to select targets and who's shooting at what, before shooting, you have the chance of not taking down your targets. There is room here for a good general to judge appropriate targets as well as amount of firepower required.
Thats two metalguns that can fire at someone, two grenades that can be thrown, a lazcannon that can be fired downrange and te remaining bolters firing at two seperate squads.
.
it is per model not weapon group, a tac squad can fire at 10 different targets if you want to
Yeah but would you want to?
depends
I know players who take a lot of time to decide how to place 5 models in cover, and such players will take minutes to decide if he want to shoot 5 different targets or just 1.
played against people who needed 30 minutes to say how to split the fire of his sturmsurge
and now this for all of his units....
Whoa, that new to-wound chart really shakes things up! When they said the stats were no longer capped to ten, I suspected that something like this might be coming. I tentatively like it. Combined with the multi-wounds, I think it might work well.
This makes me think that these new übermarines might get S and T of 5, as with this new chart it would not be gamebreakingly powerful.
ERJAK wrote: ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.
Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.
Thats two metalguns that can fire at someone, two grenades that can be thrown, a lazcannon that can be fired downrange and te remaining bolters firing at two seperate squads.
.
it is per model not weapon group, a tac squad can fire at 10 different targets if you want to
Thats true, but why would you? I was just pointing out that its not just the heavy weapon that benefits from the split.
If they go with the rules that the dwarves have for Embark and Disembark. Then characters are fine for hitching rides.
The Embark rule is upto 10 models with the KEYWORD may embark.
So, assuming that says ASARTES on both the tactical squad and the librarian. Then if you have a 5 man squad and a librarian they both can get in the same vehicle as they don't exceed it's 10 man limit.
They aren't considered joined as a squad just riding in the same vehicle.
This brings us back to the question of can a character join a squad in 40k? And if not, can they be shot at easily?
ERJAK wrote: ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.
Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.
This would be a pretty big oversight. It would be nice to have rules that let you take a foot-slogger character again without them being utterly useless!
I imagine that the split fire mechanic will be identical to Age Of Sigmar. For every unit, pick your targets, fully resolve all of your allocated attacks against one unit, then move on to the next target until all attacks against all targets are fully resolved. And multiple attack weapons can split their attacks against multiple targets too. It sounds more complicated than it is in practice believe me.
I'm now seriously starting to consider an IG armored company made up of classic bolter boat russes. Which will presumably be actually usable now.
Can you roll 1d6 to find out the number of hits getting a 5. Allocated 3 to unit 1 and 2 to unit 2? Or would you have to say.. I am firing half (Round up) at unit 1 and the Other half (round down) at unit 2. Then roll the dice and determine the number of shots.
Looking at this from the point of view of a character standing in the middle of a squad. With half rounded up going to character and other half rounded down going to squad.
ERJAK wrote: ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.
Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.
This would be a pretty big oversight. It would be nice to have rules that let you take a foot-slogger character again without them being utterly useless!
Especially now that I have to take two HQs in order to run a Battalion Detachment. Jokes on them though, one of my HQs IS the Transport that the other HQ is going to ride in.
In other news, the Skitarii Ranger Arquebus just became a bit better since the squad can shoot at other stuff while they shoot at a tank.
Pistols on Sergeants might be a bit better now since their short range won't mess up the rest of the squad.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
If there ever was a reason for removing armor facings, AV and hull points, there it is.
Selective "realism" is great when only one punching bag unit type suffers from all the resulting drawbacks, I guess.
It's particularly amazing when Dreadknights and Riptides are somehow MCs and not vehicles when the Penitent Engine and the Dreadnought are.
Agreed, but this was not so much a problem of the ruleset, but idiotic Codex design. Dreadknight, Riptide and Wraithknight should have been Walkers from the start, end of story. They could have been say AV12 all around Walkers, to remove facing issue from a model which doesn't have a clear visual facing, but vehicles nevertheless. People always harped how "MC's are overpowered" but hardly anyone thought that before they began adding OP Monstrous creatures to the game. They just as well might have classed them as "Infantry" and we would have complained that "Infantry is OP"...
And I never thought Wraithlord overpowered in 5th edition. It was decent unit and that was that. It was basically a walker which could not be stunned or immobilized. It died to same weapons as other Walkers, it wasn't an issue.
Youn wrote: Is there anything like the flamer in AoS?
Can you roll 1d6 to find out the number of hits getting a 5. Allocated 3 to unit 1 and 2 to unit 2?
Or would you have to say.. I am firing half (Round up) at unit 1 and the Other half (round down) at unit 2. Then roll the dice and determine the number of shots.
I think the Aether-Khemist's noxious aether is a gaseous type of flamer, like a Banewolf's chem cannon. And reading through the rules, I think both methods are acceptable. Just as long as you stick to resolving all your attacks one unit at a time. Although the first option is the easiest to work out.
I'm seriously impressed that they've rolled out a universal buff to shooting that is a great boost for everyone except Tau, who it doesn't really change much for - other than to perhaps give them a reason to dust their Fire Warriors off? IIRC most Tau units are single model or had split fire anyway?
Absolutely love this. Large infantry squads are back! Hidden heavy/special weapons are going to be huge. Is this the end of MSU?
Of all the changes so far, this one is the biggest change to how you will actually play the game - so far most have just been to how you resolve the game.
Youn wrote: The Embark rule is upto 10 models with the KEYWORD may embark.
Think it would be better to just have the new system be based on wounds and up the capacity of transports by 2 or 3 to account IC's joining in. Less extraneous rules.
It would be cool if transports could fit multiple separate units, like two 5 man Tac squads sharing a Rhino.
insaniak wrote: While I'm somewhat more concerned for the safety of my dreadnoughts now that bolters can wound them on a 5... I think that the return of split fire will actually help this somewhat. Because while small arms can potentially wound vehicles now, allowing units to split fire means that there should generally be better targets for them.
So while I'm still not entirely sold on the 'everything can wound everything' system, in actual practice I think the situations where you're actually going to be chipping away at vehicles with lasguns are likely to be fairly rare, or at the very least will be just the bit towards the end of the game where all of the better targets are gone and you're throwing the dice because you might as well...
This. +1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rubenite wrote: I'm seriously impressed that they've rolled out a universal buff to shooting that is a great boost for everyone except Tau, who it doesn't really change much for - other than to perhaps give them a reason to dust their Fire Warriors off? IIRC most Tau units are single model or had split fire anyway?
Absolutely love this. Large infantry squads are back! Hidden heavy/special weapons are going to be huge. Is this the end of MSU?
Of all the changes so far, this one is the biggest change to how you will actually play the game - so far most have just been to how you resolve the game.
I think some said awhile back that MSU was going to remain king this edition based on the new Morale phase. My how times have changed
Youn wrote: The Embark rule is upto 10 models with the KEYWORD may embark.
Think it would be better to just have the new system be based on wounds and up the capacity of transports by 2 or 3 to account IC's joining in. Less extraneous rules.
It would be cool if transports could fit multiple separate units, like two 5 man Tac squads sharing a Rhino.
Keywords let multiple units embark the same transport without worry about dropping like...Hive Tyrants or Mawlocs in a pod.
I don't see how Split Fire changes the reality of 8th edition Morale and the benefit of MSUing.
It means large infantry squads aren't quite as penalized as they otherwise would be, but speaking as a Tau player who already had access to this sort of Split Fire (albeit having to pay for it)... MSU was still the way to go, and the change to Morale only solidifies that.
rollawaythestone wrote: The degradation chart might also have interesting twists for certain models as well that don't just have to do with reductions in Attacks, Move, and BS/WS. Imagine a Riptide that gets damage to their Nova Reactor as they take wounds - making it harder or more dangerous to use.
Hopefully they utilize this design space well. I could see the heavy armor upgrade changing the chart to something less painful, berserking Khorne daemon engines that get killier as they go down, and more ways to differentiate the numerous metal boxes and tanks of the game. Maybe Eldar vehicles have fewer hull points but suffer less grevious penalties on the vehicle degradation chart? Maybe Leman Russes have high toughness but can be immobilized at very low health? What about a vehicle whose weapons gain "gets hot" at low health as it's heat sinks get blown off? There are so many potential ways to make this interesting.
It is sad that they are effectively penalizing larger Squads. The more time they take not showing how that will be mitigated, the more concerned I get. Luckily I favored MSU in most of my armies, but I still run full Squads of Sternguard and I would like to keep it that way without being screwed over.
Galef wrote: If anything, Split Fire makes MSU even better, especially for 3-5 man units that all have good weapons.
How so? You split fire by models, not by weapon type. So you can still fire half the bolters at one thing and half at another.
Surely in a ten man tac squad you'd have to lose eight marines before you lose your heavy/special weapons, whereas in a combat squad you'd only have to lose four marines before a heavy/special weapon is taken out? Yes battleshock is a risk, but with the -1 leadership nerf shown I'd be highly surprised if +1Ld for every 10 models in the unit isn't ported over from AoS.
JohnnyHell wrote: MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.
Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.
At absolute best, you MIGHt be able to absorb the extra losses on disposable bolterboys, but that's a big IF.
No, generally speaking, MSU fares FAR better under this form of Morale.
If we're lucky, they'll give a points break to bigger units. For instance, a mob of boyz might consist of 10 boyz for 60 points, but each additional boy is only 5 or even 4 points. That could make a difference.
JohnnyHell wrote: MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.
Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.
At absolute best, you MIGHt be able to absorb the extra losses on disposable bolterboys, but that's a big IF.
No, generally speaking, MSU fares FAR better under this form of Morale.
Certainly the math works in favor of MSU. I wonder though how many MSU armies will find themselves sans special weapons if they don't get the first turn. That is probably the moment I would not hesitate to fire lascannons at infantry.
Galef wrote: If anything, Split Fire makes MSU even better, especially for 3-5 man units that all have good weapons.
How so? You split fire by models, not by weapon type. So you can still fire half the bolters at one thing and half at another.
Surely in a ten man tac squad you'd have to lose eight marines before you lose your heavy/special weapons, whereas in a combat squad you'd only have to lose four marines before a heavy/special weapon is taken out? Yes battleshock is a risk, but with the -1 leadership nerf shown I'd be highly surprised if +1Ld for every 10 models in the unit isn't ported over from AoS.
If you have 10 marines and I kill 2-3, you no longer have 10 marines for that +1LD when the Morale check happens. and if I can kill 4-5 of them, I can now ignore the unit because you are likely to lose the rest to Morale.
If, however, you split them into 2x 5, I pretty much have to focus fire on 1 of them until they are dead, leaving the other 5-man unit unharmed and not having to take that -5 Morale check.
Split fire can allow me to decisively knock off the number of models I want from your units regardless of it is 10-man or 2x5. Split fire does not directly benefit MSU, but it certainly does not cripple it like Morale does for larger units. the 2 mechanics do not balance w=each other out. We'll have to see more before we can say "big units are back!'
Daedalus81 wrote: Certainly the math works in favor of MSU. I wonder though how many MSU armies will find themselves sans special weapons if they don't get the first turn. That is probably the moment I would not hesitate to fire lascannons at infantry.
Special weapons are last to go so not much.
In terms of durability MSU beats horde(assuming equal number of guys with equal T, save and wounds of course). There's no real go-around with that. Nor does there even really have to be as...
...Horde gets help likely from command points and h2h is where you meanwhile want to be in as few big units as possible. If possible you want your entire h2h consist of one mega unit against opponents multiple units.
JohnnyHell wrote: MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.
Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.
At absolute best, you MIGHt be able to absorb the extra losses on disposable bolterboys, but that's a big IF.
No, generally speaking, MSU fares FAR better under this form of Morale.
That's true when considering large numbers of unsaved wounds (probably 5+), but I've yet to see it proven for small numbers of unsaved wounds (1 or 2). If you get below the overspill threshold for an MSU unit, the larger unit wins.
The return of splitfire is great, now we can have squads with a weapon mix again without wasting it. And squads with an overabundance of heavy weaponry is better because now they aren't forced to overkill things.
This has an odd effect on MSU as well, I wont say it makes it bad. It still has a lot of advantages for battle shock and putting a cap on wounds you can take. But good use of fire splitting with the right kinds of guns means there isn't as much of a point in having, say, two units of five or one unit of ten. If your opponent looks at their fire output and thinks a full squad at one of those is overkill, then they can split fire and hit both. So MSU is still better, but given that assault will favour larger units that can deliver their attacks in one go, this is probably less cut and dry than it has been in every other edition of the game. MSU still definitely has the straight mechanical benefit, but so long as squads have their own "start up" cost overhead (things like vet sergeants that make the first five units more expensive than the next five for example) then costs should be able to balance out a bit.
Meanwhile that wound chart has so many implications that it is hard to fathom. T3 stuff is tougher against its traditional small-arms foils. T4 stuff can now weather S6-7 far better than before (marines got a lot tougher against stuff that was their traditional foil since 3rd). Some small arms can harm vehicles more effectively (but giving vehicles armour saves counteracts a lot of that by making vehicles die to a three-step process instead of a two-step one as they tended to be under previous editions). And while bikes got a cool buff (well assuming +1T is still what they do...) against S7-10, that they aren't noticeably more resilient than T4 versus a lot of small arms and anti-infantry weaponry means it isn't such a massive leap to go from T4 to T5 (especially since it is no longer likely to be a breakpoint due to ID). As someone who has long since completely internalized the old table, this is a hell of a lot to take in and without seeing how everything has changed it will be hard to make assumptions. But holy is this the biggest shakeup any edition has ever caused.
Also between this and split fire, I don't think small arms harming vehicles will be put in to practice too often. If there are no other targets? Then taking a few potshots with a small arm will be fine (even if they are unlikely to do anything). But if there are any better targets around, you better believe that the small arms fire is going to those while the squad heavy weapon does its own job.
Whirlwind wrote: Hmm not sure I'm over keen on the new infantry shooting rules allowing individual models to pick their target. That could really bog the game down if someone decides to roll for each model individually to maximise damage especially if you wanted to draw out for a long winded draw.
I think I would have preferred that models with the same weapons all have to shoot at the same target
I imagine in practice, you would want to shoot the same target with the same weapons anyway. There is really no strategic incentive to split small arm fire up. You don't have to charge the same unit you shoot in this edition, so there would be no reason to fire one bolter shot at any random unit, for instance.
That's true when considering large numbers of unsaved wounds (probably 5+), but I've yet to see it proven for small numbers of unsaved wounds (1 or 2). If you get below the overspill threshold for an MSU unit, the larger unit wins.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
JohnnyHell wrote: MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.
Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.
At absolute best, you MIGHt be able to absorb the extra losses on disposable bolterboys, but that's a big IF.
No, generally speaking, MSU fares FAR better under this form of Morale.
That's true when considering large numbers of unsaved wounds (probably 5+), but I've yet to see it proven for small numbers of unsaved wounds (1 or 2). If you get below the overspill threshold for an MSU unit, the larger unit wins.
For smaller numbers, neither side will suffer from Morale. I don't count that as a "win" for the larger unit, though.
I assume they will give horde units benefits for being bigger. For example. +1 to hit in meele to a unit of ork boyz that is 20 models or more, and +1 to hit more if they are 30 or more, etc...
At least thats how they balance hordes in AoS.
This has an odd effect on MSU as well, I wont say it makes it bad. It still has a lot of advantages for battle shock and putting a cap on wounds you can take. But good use of fire splitting with the right kinds of guns means there isn't as much of a point in having, say, two units of five or one unit of ten. If your opponent looks at their fire output and thinks a full squad at one of those is overkill, then they can split fire and hit both. So MSU is still better, but given that assault will favour larger units that can deliver their attacks in one go, this is probably less cut and dry than it has been in every other edition of the game. MSU still definitely has the straight mechanical benefit, but so long as squads have their own "start up" cost overhead (things like vet sergeants that make the first five units more expensive than the next five for example) then costs should be able to balance out a bit.
People are forgetting about force multipliers as well.
Meanwhile that wound chart has so many implications that it is hard to fathom. T3 stuff is tougher against its traditional small-arms foils. T4 stuff can now weather S6-7 far better than before (marines got a lot tougher against stuff that was their traditional foil since 3rd). Some small arms can harm vehicles more effectively (but giving vehicles armour saves counteracts a lot of that by making vehicles die to a three-step process instead of a two-step one as they tended to be under previous editions). And while bikes got a cool buff (well assuming +1T is still what they do...) against S7-10, that they aren't noticeably more resilient than T4 versus a lot of small arms and anti-infantry weaponry means it isn't such a massive leap to go from T4 to T5 (especially since it is no longer likely to be a breakpoint due to ID). As someone who has long since completely internalized the old table, this is a hell of a lot to take in and without seeing how everything has changed it will be hard to make assumptions. But holy is this the biggest shakeup any edition has ever caused.
Also between this and split fire, I don't think small arms harming vehicles will be put in to practice too often. If there are no other targets? Then taking a few potshots with a small arm will be fine (even if they are unlikely to do anything). But if there are any better targets around, you better believe that the small arms fire is going to those while the squad heavy weapon does its own job.
I can see small guns having a go at a big model to get the model down to the next tier on it's damage table before it charges. There will be many more opportunities other than 'nothing to shoot at'.
Unusual Suspect wrote: Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.
It won't be long after the release of 8th edition until someone figures out the best way to split the shots between two (or more) MSU. Instead of half of the shots on one unit and half on the other, it may be 75% of the shots on one unit and 25% on the other, etc.
It's true - MSU is strictly benefited by the new morale rules compared to hordes, for simple fact that they can lose more models without impact; for example, 2 units of 5 marines (Ld 7) which take 2 casualties each at most lose 1 more each with rolls of 6's - total dead=6; however, 1 unit of 10 losing 4 models can now lose 4 to morale on a roll of 6 - total dead = 8. That said, we have no idea how the morale works beyond the raw roll and it seems extremely likely that there will be benefits for larger horde units because it will 100% have been seen in playtesting otherwise - it's just too big of an oversight that I'm sure people like MVB and Reecius would spot nearly immediately. If we see certain force multipliers working on a single unit, that extra models are points-wise cheaper, or morale buffs for having large units, the situation will be reversed and people will wonder why you'd ever MSU. It's just too early to know for sure. But, technically, people are correct that MSU looks superior with the knowledge we have.
On a different note, I'm really excited to see the neglected Necron units have a chance to see play. Monoliths, Lychguard, Deathmarks, the freaking Tesseract Vault... so many cool models which have barely seen play. I mean, the last time someone was actually worried about a Monolith was what, 2006 maybe? The Vault, despite being one of my favourite models in 40k, has never really been worth taking. I mean, Lychguard never really had a hope - they were more expensive than Pariahs on release, which were already too expensive, and yet were in many ways worse: no S5 AP4 assault 2 gun, no reduce-enemies-to-Ld 7 bubble, no psyker morale check, not fearless, warscythe didn't ignore invuln saves, etc; they gained 1 attack, +2 S and reanimation protocols, which is probably a wash in the grand scheme of things and definitely not enough to make them usable. Not that Pariahs ever should have gone away in the first place (GWpls). Actually, just generally I'm excited that some of my favourite units in the game have half a hope - dreadnoughts, killa kans, flash gitz, basically any tyranid model that isn't a hive tyrant, Basilisks... so many amazing models with such horrible rules. A big reset button might be just what the doctor ordered; even if they aren't totally optimal, I'll readily take "actually usable at all" at this stage - currently these units are actually worthless.
I suspect that we might be seeing some morale buffing character effects tomorrow anyway. The next post should be informative no matter what, because we know almost nothing about how they'll function in 8th.
Genestealer Jesse wrote: I am confused. Is there likely to be special rules for tank hunting specialist weapons like armor penetrating guns? Like a vanquisher?
A few people in my local area belive that you now charge in the movement phase/charge before you shoot. But I never saw anything that confirmed or sujested this.
Lockark wrote: A few people in my local area belive that you now charge in the movement phase/charge before you shoot. But I never saw anything that confirmed or sujested this.
Did I miss something?
I don't think so, they seem confused - you can now ''advance'' in the movement phase i.e. 'Run' which was previously in the shooting phase.
Charging is still done as normal.
"Splitfire means we won't have to deal with small arms used on vehicles..." Huh? Parking lot guard would like a word. When everything can do everything there is really even less incentive to take "balanced" lists and not go for target saturation to try to make some of your opponent's weapons less useful.
kestral wrote: "Splitfire means we won't have to deal with small arms used on vehicles..." Huh? Parking lot guard would like a word. When everything can do everything there is really even less incentive to take "balanced" lists and not go for target saturation to try to make some of your opponent's weapons less useful.
Probably won't get many Command Points that way. Just sayin'
This split fire rule makes bringing a Lascannon or Multi-Melta in a squad worthwhile. No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it. No more shooting the lascannon against weedy chaos cultists.
And come to think of it, it may lead to a resurgence of the humble Missile Launcher, as its versatility is multiplied - it can support your anti-horde shooting or act as your anti-tank weapon.
Lockark wrote: A few people in my local area belive that you now charge in the movement phase/charge before you shoot. But I never saw anything that confirmed or sujested this.
Did I miss something?
Charging is basically its own phase now. As far as I know, they haven't confirmed turn order yet, so it's possible charge occurs before shooting, but I doubt it.
kestral wrote: "Splitfire means we won't have to deal with small arms used on vehicles..." Huh? Parking lot guard would like a word. When everything can do everything there is really even less incentive to take "balanced" lists and not go for target saturation to try to make some of your opponent's weapons less useful.
This balances itself out. Sure, go for that guard parking lot, but if you ever run into another army, for example Sisters of Battle; who are inherently geared toward killing parking lots you simply won't have enough models on the board to survive the ridiculous amount of melta that army can put out even in a relatively balanced list. On top of that, the 'everything can hurt everything' mechanic means that while bolter and flamers won't be very good against vehicles they won't be useless either.
In the end this whole system pushes you more towards balancing out your list so you have enough to deal with everything that comes up and if extreme parking lot lists come in vogue then people will just start running more melta until the parking lot dies faster than it kills. If infantry spam gets popular than flamers will come into vogue, etc, etc, etc.
Eyjio wrote: It's true - MSU is strictly benefited by the new morale rules compared to hordes, for simple fact that they can lose more models without impact; for example, 2 units of 5 marines (Ld 7) which take 2 casualties each at most lose 1 more each with rolls of 6's - total dead=6; however, 1 unit of 10 losing 4 models can now lose 4 to morale on a roll of 6 - total dead = 8.
That seems like a strangely skewed scenario that disregards the strategic value of guaranteeing that a specific unit, at a specific location, is removed.
As for fire splitting, I'd argue it directly deals with one of the major benefits of MSU - forced loss of efficiency. An MSU you'd either overkill or never get off the table. With fire splitting, you can always dedicate the correct amount of firepower to eliminating a whittled MSU.
Eyjio wrote: It's true - MSU is strictly benefited by the new morale rules compared to hordes, for simple fact that they can lose more models without impact; for example, 2 units of 5 marines (Ld 7) which take 2 casualties each at most lose 1 more each with rolls of 6's - total dead=6; however, 1 unit of 10 losing 4 models can now lose 4 to morale on a roll of 6 - total dead = 8.
That seems like a strangely skewed scenario that disregards the strategic value of guaranteeing that a specific unit, at a specific location, is removed.
As for fire splitting, I'd argue it directly deals with one of the major benefits of MSU - forced loss of efficiency. An MSU you'd either overkill or never get off the table. With fire splitting, you can always dedicate the correct amount of firepower to eliminating a whittled MSU.
Don't assume all options will be available for a 5 man squad. Certain weapons may only be available to 10 man or more size squads. Also in AoS, larger units get additional bonus for being above a certain size. The bonus varies from unit to unit and is another bespoken rule. Plus, I would say it is safe to assume there will be some characters that will have abilities to make units immune to battle shock. That will minimize the impact of high casualties on larger units.
His Master's Voice wrote: That seems like a strangely skewed scenario that disregards the strategic value of guaranteeing that a specific unit, at a specific location, is removed.
As for fire splitting, I'd argue it directly deals with one of the major benefits of MSU - forced loss of efficiency. An MSU you'd either overkill or never get off the table. With fire splitting, you can always dedicate the correct amount of firepower to eliminating a whittled MSU.
I'm... not entirely sure what you mean? I mean, if I do a comparison where 1 of the two units of MSU infantry dies and the other is untouched, as compared to a 10 model unit where 5 die, the comparison is even less favourable - the MSU 5 man unit takes no morale check (because it's unharmed) and the 10 man is taking D6-2 casualties. Consequently, if two 5 man units are on an objective, they'll hold it considerably better than one 10 man unit on an objective using only the rules we know (which is unlikely to be the full picture). The MSU will always outperform a blob, because the morale is designed to make blobs take more wounds.
Fire splitting does help hordes, yeah, but that's a net neutral compared to MSU, and still marginally worse if you have to declare a full unit's target's first as with MSU you'll see the impact of one squad before splitting up the other's targets. Again, the rules we know benefit MSU more than hordes, but I doubt it'll remain as such.
Little Guys update: Q: Hmm, I've always run my guard squads with lasguns only and kept tthe heavy weapons in seperate heavy weapons squads to not waste shots firing lasguns at tanks and so forth, looks like I might be putting the heavy weapons behind some meatshields, I mean squadmates, again.
A:It's a short but merry* life in the Imperial Guard! Heroism guaranteed**!
*Merriness not confirmed.
** Your experiences may differ.
Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.
Q: Are we getting anymore faction updates? Yesterday's chaos space marines left me hungry for more
A: We we will indeed see more, Astra Militarum next!
Q: I guess with most vehicles having armour saves which won't really be affected by small arms fire, they should survive.
But isn't there a chance that poisened weapons will ignore that table?
Or that someone tripe firing lasguns could easily roll enough 6's to take out a dreadnought in one volley?
A: I mean.... you have to fire a a lot of lasguns to do it! I just had a game at lunchtime today.. a Tactical Squad firing at a Rhinofor three turns barely scratched it....
Q: Woah, does that mean Strength 7 only wounds T4 on a 3+ instead of 2+?
A: That's right. Conversely, S: 4 now wounds anything up to T:7 on just a 5+...
Q: Will FW chapters be in the update?
A: Indeed, yes, FW have committed to getting rules out for all of their Warhammer 40,000 models on launch.
Q: Little guys? Squats confirmed?!?
A: Haha! Not *that* little, I'm afraid!
Q: So a plasmagun wounds a marine on a 3+? Do I get that right?
A: That's right... but now a bolt gun wounds Toughness 7 on a 5+...
Big Models: Q: The Hivemind thanks you New Games Workshop! Best news yet!
A: Thanks, Hivemind!
Say, what's this bug on the back of my he...... WE LOVE THE HIVEMIND.
Q: Is there any plans for GW to release an easy to use countdown wound counter? It's now usable for AoS and 40k. They could be sold in different sizes for each model level. 0-10, 10-20, 20+
A: We do indeed! Check these out: https://www.games-workshop.com/Citadel-Wound-Trackers
Q: How will that work for Vehicles that had such differences in AV? E.g. a Leman Russ being 14 front 10 rear. Is the squishy rear no longer reflected?
A: Hey Thomas- Tanks have one Toughness value and wound count, just like other large models.
Q: The real question is will I be able to take an army of flayed ones?
A: Absolutely, yes! What a terrifying army that would be...!
Warzone Cadia: Q: Will there be an article about what is the new situation of Fenris, after the whole war with Magnus, the great losses of Fenrisians lives (due to both Chaos and the Inquisition) and the fact that now they are almost in the middle of the Rift?
A: Hey Giacomo- There very well could be. Keep your eye on this page!
Q: Is there actually anything left of Cadia to reclaim? I thought the planet blew up.
A: Hey Kevin - it didn't blow up as such... there is still a planet left...not much of it, but it still stands!
Q: What will happen with the Apocalypse? Will it be playable in 8th, or will you release a new rulebook?
A: Hey Pablo; great to hear you enjoy Apocalypse! What we know right now is that current expansions and the like will not be compatible with the new edition of the game. We're very early days at the moment, so we haven't released any information about specific rules sets in the new edition. Watch this space on what's coming in the future!
Q: Didn't the planet explode?
A: Hey Richard - the smoking remains of Cadia still stand!
Chaos Marine Focus: Q: I think we all want to know if the original Traitor Legions will have their specific personality, rules and play styles that were partially restored by the Traitor Legions supplement, or if we will be back to "Generic Chaos" at launch.
A: Hey guys - the Traitor Legions will indeed be getting rules to distinguish them from each other. More news on what that looks like in the future.
Q: It's like christmas in.. May? when is the next faction focus article? Will it be Tyranids? If not, why would you anger the great devourer so?
FUTHER Q IN RESPONSE TO OTHER POSTERS: All they have to say is "you can use something other than flying hive tyrant and have fun"
A: You can indeed use something other than the flying hive tyrant and have an absolute bawl!
EDIT: errr, of course, we mean "ball", of course! There will be no bawling, we promise!
Q: Warhammer 40,000 - its been suggested that I ask if my Imperial Knights will be viable and able to be used in "Matched Play" since implying that I want to be able to do so is not clear enough. Basically I'm not going to play "Open play" and I won't play "narrative play" very often, all I will play 99% of the time is "matched play" as I normally play at tournaments. So again the question is will I be able to use an entire army of imperial knights in matched play? Also since Deathwing was completely screwed in the last Dark Angel Codex, (which invalidated how I used to run them as a pure Deathwing army), can I please ask again, will I be able to dust them off from their 2 year imprisonment in boxes and run them in matched play as a pure Deathwing Army once again?
A: Hey Matt - pretty sure we've answered this elsewhere too... but yes! Knights and Deathwing will be a viable matched play army in the new edition.
Q: Thank goodness for that; I'm getting tired of playing the good guys! I can finally play my Ultramarines the way they were intended Fingers crossed for new CSM models too, or at least a conversion kit for use with Calth and Prospero squads.
A: Are you suggesting the Ultramarines are the bad guys?! I demand satisfaction, sir! *slaps face with glove*
Q: What about the forge world special minotaurs models? Like Asterion Moloc will he have rules?
A: Hey Murray - a good question, sir! Well, Forge World have said that every model we sell right now will be getting rules. Moloc is on sale right now... so look out for new rules for him incoming!
Q: I'd rather know if my full imperial knight army will be able to be used as an army in the new edition without being unbound or if my all Deathwing army will be useable also without being unbound (or without being whatever the new unbound is)...
A: Hey Matt - absolutely,- both Knights and Deathwing will 100% be able to be used in the new edition. No armies are being made obsolete.
Q: Will Chaos Marines finally gain access to drop pods?
A: Hey Lee - that's a great question. On release, we will be covering all of the models we currently see, which means, no, there will not be a Chaos Space Marine Drop Pod. But who knows what the future brings! Keep your eye on this page for all the latest news on releases.
Q: Or you could just release 8th edition already....
A: Hey Andrew - the release date is set, but we thought we would let you guys know what's going on in advance, so you can get prepared for the release. As such, when the new game drops, it's not a huge surprise, or a load of information is having to be taken in at once.
Q: So what about us legions?
A: Hey Nathan; The Traitor Legions will have rules that distinguish themselves from each other, so your identity as a Legion is not lost. More on that coming later!
kestral wrote: "Splitfire means we won't have to deal with small arms used on vehicles..." Huh? Parking lot guard would like a word. When everything can do everything there is really even less incentive to take "balanced" lists and not go for target saturation to try to make some of your opponent's weapons less useful.
Split fire doesn't make the ability of small arms to hurt tanks any less ridiculous, but it does make it less likely that you'll want to bother shooting them at tanks. Without split fire, when your heavy weapon shoots at the tank there's no good reason to not shoot everything else at it as well, on the off-chance that you'll get a lucky shot or two through the armour. Add in split fire, and suddenly there are other targets for the regular guys that they have better odds of actually hurting... so the situations where you would shoot them all at the tank are at least reduced, if not eliminated completely.
Lockark wrote: A few people in my local area belive that you now charge in the movement phase/charge before you shoot. But I never saw anything that confirmed or sujested this.
Did I miss something?
I don't think so, they seem confused - you can now ''advance'' in the movement phase i.e. 'Run' which was previously in the shooting phase.
Charging is still done as normal.
They are convinced it's going to be in the order of psychic, move, charge, shoot phases.
No idea were they got this from. Left me confused lol
John Prins wrote: This split fire rule makes bringing a Lascannon or Multi-Melta in a squad worthwhile. No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it. No more shooting the lascannon against weedy chaos cultists.
And come to think of it, it may lead to a resurgence of the humble Missile Launcher, as its versatility is multiplied - it can support your anti-horde shooting or act as your anti-tank weapon.
yeah, and if you move you can still use it reasonably well, I'll likely be using missile launchers with my tac squads
I like that small arms fire can hurt tanks, even if it is rare. I just watched the movie Fury, and it reminds me of that,
Spoiler:
200 dudes shooting a tank and barely does anything, except when they pop their heads out get more ammo
Watch that movie if you are still hating on everything can damage everything.
Edit: to elaborate on the "realism" that lots of people were freaking out about, in the current rules, the "realism" is they see a tank, and just look at it, in new rules, they see the tank, and at least give it everything they have got, maybe getting the 1 in 100 lucky shot off.
Also split fire is awesome, but I agree, I hope you have to declare all targets first (5 bolters against that, 3 against that etc.)
QA stuff is interesting. No armour facings confirmed, clearly (I mean they all but were already, but definitely now). Maybe some peeps can stop banging the Maybe There Will Be Drum on that one now.
insaniak wrote: Split fire doesn't make the ability of small arms to hurt tanks any less ridiculous,
Nothing's perfect. I think of it as abstract damage - all the shots pinging off the hull makes the driver nervous and he hits some terrain, or the already existing holes in the hull from heavy weapons provide a nice clean avenue for small arms fire to enter the more vulnerable guts of the vehicle. A bolter round might never penetrate the hull of a Devilfish, but it might damage the chin turret or engine intakes.
John Prins wrote: No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.
Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.
insaniak wrote: Split fire doesn't make the ability of small arms to hurt tanks any less ridiculous,
Nothing's perfect. I think of it as abstract damage - all the shots pinging off the hull makes the driver nervous and he hits some terrain, or the already existing holes in the hull from heavy weapons provide a nice clean avenue for small arms fire to enter the more vulnerable guts of the vehicle. A bolter round might never penetrate the hull of a Devilfish, but it might damage the chin turret or engine intakes.
It's weird to hear anyone call anything in 40k ridiculous derisively...I mean...there are dude that ride cybernetically enhanced wolves into battle against warmachine the size of a small city in this game.
You could kill a tank with an AXE before, why is doing it with a gun suddenly crazy? Or have tanks always had a secret weakness to axes i didn't know about...
John Prins wrote: No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.
Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.
Well, except they aren't if you look at the maths, and also look at the bigger picture; there are other targets other than one tank to think about
Automatically Appended Next Post: "anything wounding anything" is going to be a noob trap, or an "I can't see anything else so I may as well" kind of deal, I think.
John Prins wrote: No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.
Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.
How many combined bolters? Assuming you hit and you do the average three wounds with a lascannon how many bolters do you need? you need about 1.8 lascannon hits to do 3 wounds reliably to a tank you need 54 bolter hits.
So yes, you are just as likely to do those 3 wounds with 3 lascannon devastators as you are with 41 rapid firing bolter marines,
John Prins wrote: No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.
Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.
Well, except they aren't if you look at the maths, and also look at the bigger picture; there are other targets other than one tank to think about
Automatically Appended Next Post: "anything wounding anything" is going to be a noob trap, or an "I can't see anything else so I may as well" kind of deal, I think.
John Prins wrote: No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.
Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.
Assuming a 3+ save, you'd need 24 bolter shots (I think? My mathhammer is rusty) to do one wound, on average. Seems wasteful to me. If there's no other target, though, by all means, go for it.
Rippy wrote: I like that small arms fire can hurt tanks, even if it is rare. I just watched the movie Fury, and it reminds me of that,
Spoiler:
200 dudes shooting a tank and barely does anything, except when they pop their heads out get more ammo
Watch that movie if you are still hating on everything can damage everything.
That scene was terrible and raised the movie from a not bad gritty WW2 movie to horribly absurd unrealistic movie. I was enjoying most of the movie and left the cinema deflated because of that scene, to end an otherwise decent movie on such an absurd idea, urgh. The Germans wouldn't have wasted their time and lives shooting small arms at an immobilised Sherman, especially since in the earlier scene they were shown with plenty of anti tank Panzerfausts.
Rippy wrote: I like that small arms fire can hurt tanks, even if it is rare. I just watched the movie Fury, and it reminds me of that,
Spoiler:
200 dudes shooting a tank and barely does anything, except when they pop their heads out get more ammo
Watch that movie if you are still hating on everything can damage everything.
That scene was terrible and raised the movie from a not bad gritty WW2 movie to horribly absurd unrealistic movie. I was enjoying most of the movie and left the cinema deflated because of that scene, to end an otherwise decent movie on such an absurd idea, urgh. The Germans wouldn't have wasted their time and lives shooting small arms at an immobilised Sherman, especially since in the earlier scene they were shown with plenty of anti tank Panzerfausts.
Yes, as much as I enjoyed the movie that scene was utterly preposterous. And why exactly did they leave the spare ammo on the outside of the tank when their whole purpose was to make a last stand?
As an aside to this whole discussion, while I find the damage tables interesting it does tend to clump everything toward the median. Of course now weapons may be strength 13 and models toughness 11 for that matter - we shall see!
Everyone seems pleased that vehicles are going to be so much more durable, but the converse of course is that many weapons (lascannons, for example) must be weaker by the same degree. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out once all the rules are available.
Vehicle durability depends on how many multiwound weapons you can shoot at it. D6 is also a pretty large range of outcomes - not that different from "blows up on a 6" for many vehicles.
Hopefully they will do some interesting things with vehicle stats - so far all we've seen is 3+ save, T8, variable wounds, right? Maybe Eldar willl have T7 Vehicles but T10 walkers/constructs.
While I agree that the end scene changed it from a good war movie in to another Hollywood 'MERICA! moment, the sort of unrealistic warfare there is pretty much the same as warfare in 40k, which is my point.
rollawaythestone wrote: The degradation chart might also have interesting twists for certain models as well that don't just have to do with reductions in Attacks, Move, and BS/WS. Imagine a Riptide that gets damage to their Nova Reactor as they take wounds - making it harder or more dangerous to use.
Hopefully they utilize this design space well. I could see the heavy armor upgrade changing the chart to something less painful, berserking Khorne daemon engines that get killier as they go down, and more ways to differentiate the numerous metal boxes and tanks of the game. Maybe Eldar vehicles have fewer hull points but suffer less grevious penalties on the vehicle degradation chart? Maybe Leman Russes have high toughness but can be immobilized at very low health? What about a vehicle whose weapons gain "gets hot" at low health as it's heat sinks get blown off? There are so many potential ways to make this interesting.
There is evidence in AoS that they will make use of this design element. For example a Lord of Change has their unique spell become less effective as he loses wounds, Skarbrand becomes angrier the more damage he has suffered, and Nagash loses spell casting potency. So, without any actual evidence, I fully expect that different units will have different results, and different tiers.
I.e. the morkanaut has three damage tracks, and only degrades after suffering 9 wounds. I could see a Knight with three damage tracks, two for WS/BS and last called reactor with an increasing value that if rolled over = goodbye cruel world, and suffers degraded ability at a lower percentage of wounds suffered.
kestral wrote: Vehicle durability depends on how many multiwound weapons you can shoot at it. D6 is also a pretty large range of outcomes - not that different from "blows up on a 6" for many vehicles.
Hopefully they will do some interesting things with vehicle stats - so far all we've seen is 3+ save, T8, variable wounds, right? Maybe Eldar willl have T7 Vehicles but T10 walkers/constructs.
Rippy wrote: I like that small arms fire can hurt tanks, even if it is rare. I just watched the movie Fury, and it reminds me of that,
Spoiler:
200 dudes shooting a tank and barely does anything, except when they pop their heads out get more ammo
Watch that movie if you are still hating on everything can damage everything.
Edit: to elaborate on the "realism" that lots of people were freaking out about, in the current rules, the "realism" is they see a tank, and just look at it, in new rules, they see the tank, and at least give it everything they have got, maybe getting the 1 in 100 lucky shot off.
Also split fire is awesome, but I agree, I hope you have to declare all targets first (5 bolters against that, 3 against that etc.)
Notice, aside from the Panzerfaust, no small-arms fire actually damaged the vehicle, not a great comparison to say... lasguns smoking a Leman Russ. And like someone else mentioned, making a last stand with your reserve ammo attached to the outside of your tank is just stupid.
Also, split fire being worth it now? Man, figures I got rid of all my devastators.
Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.
40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.
Hollow wrote: Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.
I know they said all models will have rules on release, but does this cover Forgeworld 40k models also? Id like to get SECUTARII HOPLITES upgrade kit and SECUTARII PELTASTS upgrade kit, but don't want to build them if they wont have rules on release
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
If there ever was a reason for removing armor facings, AV and hull points, there it is.
Selective "realism" is great when only one punching bag unit type suffers from all the resulting drawbacks, I guess.
It's particularly amazing when Dreadknights and Riptides are somehow MCs and not vehicles when the Penitent Engine and the Dreadnought are.
Agreed, but this was not so much a problem of the ruleset, but idiotic Codex design. Dreadknight, Riptide and Wraithknight should have been Walkers from the start, end of story. They could have been say AV12 all around Walkers, to remove facing issue from a model which doesn't have a clear visual facing, but vehicles nevertheless. People always harped how "MC's are overpowered" but hardly anyone thought that before they began adding OP Monstrous creatures to the game. They just as well might have classed them as "Infantry" and we would have complained that "Infantry is OP"...
And I never thought Wraithlord overpowered in 5th edition. It was decent unit and that was that. It was basically a walker which could not be stunned or immobilized. It died to same weapons as other Walkers, it wasn't an issue.
The real issue with the last generation of "Machines" Monstruous creatures, is that they where too good at shooting.
i mean Dreadknight with that ridiculous 12 shots cannon?..., same for Riptides.
It is a HUGE gap between the old school MC's like Carnis and stuff and Walkers who had ONE maybe TWo weapons in some cases that had at best 2 to 4 Shots, where at the time the Psyflemen Dread was considered the best shooter with his 4 AC shots a turn.
Then came the riduculous bullcrap.
honestly a Dreadknight wiht a one shot or even a 2 shot gun, is waaay less scary for my models then the one that can shoot 12 times with ONE weapon and ignore my armors, and while a powerfull cannon on a vehicle had a chance to be destroyed or at least shaken to interupt the barrage, giving a MC 12shots weapons that is immune to anything short from death and LoS blocking terrains, thats what was the groin kicker.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.
In theory, yes. In practice, no.
A bolter has a 1/27 (3.7%) chance of putting 1 wound on a dread. To kill a dread you would need about 216 bolter shots. If you dropped 20 bolter marines on turn 1 within rapid fire range of the dread and spent the entire time rapid firing into the dread, by the end of turn 6, they would have managed to bring down the dread. Considering that this would take 648 dice rolled to accomplish, we can assume the law of large numbers will come into play making this a fairly consistent number.
A LC has 37% to inflict d6 wounds (~3.5) wounds on a dread.
The LC is 10 times more likely to injure the dread. The LC will also do 3.5 times as much damage. This means that between 6 and 7 LC shots will kill a dread on average.
2 LC predators with LC sponsons can kill that same dread in one turn.
What is the takeaway? 8th edition really pushes the right tool for the job.
str00dles1 wrote: I know they said all models will have rules on release, but does this cover Forgeworld 40k models also? Id like to get SECUTARII HOPLITES upgrade kit and SECUTARII PELTASTS upgrade kit, but don't want to build them if they wont have rules on release
All forgeworld models released or given 40k specific rules will definitely, 30k specific stuff might have to wait.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Though with Split Fire on everything, doesn't that kind of even out?
ERJAK wrote: You could kill a tank with an AXE before, why is doing it with a gun suddenly crazy? Or have tanks always had a secret weakness to axes i didn't know about...
You could if you had sufficient strenght. But S4 axe ain't killing land raider any more likely than S4 bolter.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
If there ever was a reason for removing armor facings, AV and hull points, there it is.
Selective "realism" is great when only one punching bag unit type suffers from all the resulting drawbacks, I guess.
It's particularly amazing when Dreadknights and Riptides are somehow MCs and not vehicles when the Penitent Engine and the Dreadnought are.
Agreed, but this was not so much a problem of the ruleset, but idiotic Codex design. Dreadknight, Riptide and Wraithknight should have been Walkers from the start, end of story. They could have been say AV12 all around Walkers, to remove facing issue from a model which doesn't have a clear visual facing, but vehicles nevertheless. People always harped how "MC's are overpowered" but hardly anyone thought that before they began adding OP Monstrous creatures to the game. They just as well might have classed them as "Infantry" and we would have complained that "Infantry is OP"...
And I never thought Wraithlord overpowered in 5th edition. It was decent unit and that was that. It was basically a walker which could not be stunned or immobilized. It died to same weapons as other Walkers, it wasn't an issue.
The real issue with the last generation of "Machines" Monstruous creatures, is that they where too good at shooting.
i mean Dreadknight with that ridiculous 12 shots cannon?..., same for Riptides.
It is a HUGE gap between the old school MC's like Carnis and stuff and Walkers who had ONE maybe TWo weapons in some cases that had at best 2 to 4 Shots, where at the time the Psyflemen Dread was considered the best shooter with his 4 AC shots a turn.
Then came the riduculous bullcrap.
honestly a Dreadknight wiht a one shot or even a 2 shot gun, is waaay less scary for my models then the one that can shoot 12 times with ONE weapon and ignore my armors, and while a powerfull cannon on a vehicle had a chance to be destroyed or at least shaken to interupt the barrage, giving a MC 12shots weapons that is immune to anything short from death and LoS blocking terrains, thats what was the groin kicker.
That 12 shot gun is S4. With AP-. And have to have Force casted.
casvalremdeikun wrote: MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Though with Split Fire on everything, doesn't that kind of even out?
Nope. Survivability wise doesn't make much of a difference and it's still in favour of MSU.
Survivability wise MSU has been way to go for like ages and the new morale dialled that up to 11. Horde did get help in h2h though where the new strike order really punishesh having say 3-4 units vs opponents 1. And command points are more likely to help 1 unit rather than multiple which helps horde in return.
It's even possible GW has been smart enough to borrow a page from HH and bigger units are cheaper per model than MSU. Since rules generally favour MSU it only makes sense for bigger units to be cheaper per model.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Except now each 5 man squad will be hit by 2 heavy bolters thus negating said penalty...
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Except now each 5 man squad will be hit by 2 heavy bolters thus negating said penalty...
On average? sure.
But when it comes to overshooting a target, MSU is more likely to soak up more damage than needed compared to full squads.
So Marines would Dreads on 5+ now, rather than 6+.
Yeah, Dreads should be T8.
Hollow wrote: Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.
But the concepts of small-arms and anti-tank weapons aren't abstract, so even when talking about fictional weaponry it shouldn't be too hard to determine what would be realistic in context/universe.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Except now each 5 man squad will be hit by 2 heavy bolters thus negating said penalty...
On average? sure.
But when it comes to overshooting a target, MSU is more likely to soak up more damage than needed compared to full squads.
Not if you simply choose not to fire more weapons at them than was needed to kill them. I could simply choose my average number of shots required to take them done and throw the rest at another target.
If there isn't anything else to shoot at, then the shots aren't wasted anyway. Considering you will probably get bonuses to accuracy or extra shots and more than likely a boost to morale the trade-off is really a preference of playstyle.
macluvin wrote: Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?
Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?
I mean I can give you a summary:
"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."
If 4 heavy bolter unit is stupid enough to fire at both units rather than one then GREAT! That just helps the MSU...Either way MSU wins. You concentrate fire to MSU and MSU is more survivable than big unit. You split and MSU is still more survivable.
Only time new split fire really helps bigger unit is when you can split so that overkill doesn't happen but even that doesn't change it to horde's favour. It just lessens the gap a bit.
The fact 4 HB isn't enough to wipe out 5 men squad in one go is precicely proof you shouldn't split because concentration of fire is what you should be doing. 1-2 casualties to one unit is worse than concentrated to one unit barring some special edge cases(say scenario is one where you need to have units with more than X models left and enemy has multiple units just in that line...)
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Except now each 5 man squad will be hit by 2 heavy bolters thus negating said penalty...
On average? sure.
But when it comes to overshooting a target, MSU is more likely to soak up more damage than needed compared to full squads.
Not if you simply choose not to fire more weapons at them than was needed to kill them. I could simply choose my average number of shots required to take them done and throw the rest at another target.
If there isn't anything else to shoot at, then the shots aren't wasted anyway. Considering you will probably get bonuses to accuracy or extra shots and more than likely a boost to morale the trade-off is really a preference of playstyle.
Excellent point. As we all know, the average number of wounds/shots is an absolutely reliable number that never varies from the average as calculuated, right?
macluvin wrote: Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?
Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?
I mean I can give you a summary:
"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."
To be fair, it will be more like:
"Rough Riders? Yeah, we've heard they suck at charges, despite being a charge-oriented unit. Don't worry, they're going to be great when the hit the enemy front lines! And Ogryns? Yeah, despite the fluff suggesting they're extremely durable, experience tells us they aren't. Hey, guess what!?! In the new edition, we've made them worth taking!
While they don't really give us much in terms of HOW they address the changes, I think you can at least admit that the Chaos leaks suggest that GW is minimally knowledgeable of the difficulties facing the worst* of the model range.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Split the attacks between the 2 x 5 units and now both have to take battleshock tests, potentially risking additional casualties to fleeing.
As they are smaller, every loss takes a greater percentage away and also reduces the number of attacks coming from each MSU.
macluvin wrote: Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?
Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?
I mean I can give you a summary:
"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."
I hope you were looking for a job with Warhammer Community, because I think you are exactly what they are looking for!
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Split the attacks between the 2 x 5 units and now both have to take battleshock tests, potentially risking additional casualties to fleeing.
As they are smaller, every loss takes a greater percentage away and also reduces the number of attacks coming from each MSU.
Use math to show your work.
2 losses, and you're either ignoring the losses (2 MSU 5 units) or potentially taking 1 model loss through battleshock (10 man unit or both losses on the same 5 unit model)
Either way, you aren't losing the awesomesauce Heavy/special weapon slot.
More losses, you're losing more in the 10 man unit than you are in the 5 man unit.
macluvin wrote: Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?
Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?
I mean I can give you a summary:
"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."
It just didn't get old. Have you exalt!
H.B.M.C. wrote: The real test, of course, will be the Pyrovore.
Will they fix it? Can they fix it? Should it be abandoned in favour of something with a less dopey name?
They should just erase that rules entry and give the Pyrovore miniature to the Biovore rules. And burn all the Biovore miniatures!
ERJAK wrote: You could kill a tank with an AXE before, why is doing it with a gun suddenly crazy? Or have tanks always had a secret weakness to axes i didn't know about...
You could if you had sufficient strenght. But S4 axe ain't killing land raider any more likely than S4 bolter.
Celestine's S5 sword kills land raiders pretty well. They should ask her where they got it made.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Yea, I guarantee that you guys are missing a big piece of the picture. MSU is not likely to win you games.
There is also ablative wounds. If the 5 man unit has a meltagun, and takes 5 casualties it loses said meltagun. A 10 man unit with 2 can take 5 casualties, lose 3 more due to morale, and still have meltagun on the table.
That is a win for large units as well.
As I said, the difference will (more than likely) be primarily how you want to play, not a guaranteed bonus for MSU as opposed to large units. The only serious difference was the chance at overkill and once they allowed you to divide fire however you wanted that problem went right out the window.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: There is also ablative wounds. If the 5 man unit has a meltagun, and takes 5 casualties it loses said meltagun. A 10 man unit with 2 can take 5 casualties, lose 3 more due to morale, and still have meltagun on the table.
That is a win for large units as well.
As I said, the difference will (more than likely) be primarily how you want to play, not a guaranteed bonus for MSU as opposed to large units. The only serious difference was the chance at overkill and once they allowed you to divide fire however you wanted that problem went right out the window.
Well..in the first scenario you forgot that you'd have 2 units of 5. So you'll still have a meltagun on the table.
There really is no downside to MSU except transport I guess. Though if you're admech then you don't care since somehow, even though you produce the damn things, you don't have any.
There is downside to MSU in that:
Survivability of the individual units
Potentially more battleshock tests (will be mitigated in high Ld units, admittedly)
If they follow AoS unit construction, you don't get as many special weapons unless you invest in fully-stocked squads.
Sure, you may get 1 special weapon but the 10 man squad will get 2 and possibly more.
The "MSU Advantage" is heavily based on two things:
1)The Leadership of the Unit
2)The Point Cost difference between the Single and MSU units
Based on the often 4 Model Lost to a Single Unit, 2 Models lost on 2 Different Units we find the maximum models lost to be:
Leadership /Single Unit / 2 MSU 8 / 2 / 0
7 / 3 / 2
6 / 4 / 4
5 / 5 / 6
As you can see, the advantage reduces as the leadership reduces. Also, MSU assumes the cost difference between the single unit and the two MSU are close. At what point level does the "MSU" advantage disappear? GW could easily eliminate the advantage by making the base unit more expensive while additional models are less expensive.
For example, MSU Advantage is high if 5 Tactical Marines in one squad cost 80 Points while increasing 10 marines in the Squad Cost 160. It is much lower if the first 5 Tactical Marines cost 100 points while getting the squad up to 10 still cost 160.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Yea, I guarantee that you guys are missing a big piece of the picture. MSU is not likely to win you games.
Oh golly, I sure am glad you've had the exclusive chance to play garbage loads of 8th and are using all that experience to tell us what will work.
Wait.
alextroy wrote: The "MSU Advantage" is heavily based on two things:
1)The Leadership of the Unit
2)The Point Cost difference between the Single and MSU units
Based on the often 4 Model Lost to a Single Unit, 2 Models lost on 2 Different Units we find the maximum models lost to be:
Leadership /Single Unit / 2 MSU 8 / 2 / 0
7 / 3 / 2
6 / 4 / 4
5 / 5 / 6
As you can see, the advantage reduces as the leadership reduces. Also, MSU assumes the cost difference between the single unit and the two MSU are close. At what point level does the "MSU" advantage disappear? GW could easily eliminate the advantage by making the base unit more expensive while additional models are less expensive.
For example, MSU Advantage is high if 5 Tactical Marines in one squad cost 80 Points while increasing 10 marines in the Squad Cost 160. It is much lower if the first 5 Tactical Marines cost 100 points while getting the squad up to 10 still cost 160.
Yes, this works this way because you get to subtract your leadership twice if there are two units. You also roll twice, but as long as leadership is greater than 3.5 the advantage is MSU.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: There is also ablative wounds. If the 5 man unit has a meltagun, and takes 5 casualties it loses said meltagun. A 10 man unit with 2 can take 5 casualties, lose 3 more due to morale, and still have meltagun on the table.
That is a win for large units as well.
As I said, the difference will (more than likely) be primarily how you want to play, not a guaranteed bonus for MSU as opposed to large units. The only serious difference was the chance at overkill and once they allowed you to divide fire however you wanted that problem went right out the window.
Well..in the first scenario you forgot that you'd have 2 units of 5. So you'll still have a meltagun on the table.
There really is no downside to MSU except transport I guess. Though if you're admech then you don't care since somehow, even though you produce the damn things, you don't have any.
In the large squad you would still have 2. Losing models from larger squads grants greater versatility in regards to weapons lost etc. Then there is also the inherent bonuses to larger units to increase their effectiveness that are almost guaranteed to be involved in this game. When a 20 man unit of guardsmen get to fire one more shot with their lasguns than 2 ten man units it mitigates the slight advantage granted for MSU. (Simply an example drawn from similar ranged horde units from AOS)
privateer4hire wrote: Split the attacks between the 2 x 5 units and now both have to take battleshock tests, potentially risking additional casualties to fleeing.
As they are smaller, every loss takes a greater percentage away and also reduces the number of attacks coming from each MSU.
Sheesh that's what I'm talking about. You split in hopes of causing battleshock you REDUCE casualties you cause. Due to the way battleshock works that's GOOD for MSU. MSU player WANTS YOU to do that and every time you do what your opponent wants you to do you should know you are doing something wrong.
LD5. You cause 1 casualty. You cause in average 3.5+1-5=-0.5 casualty. If you had caused 1 casualty more it's 0.5 casualty in average. 3 casualties? 1.5 casualty. Basically every kill means ANOTHER model dying. 2 at the price of 1!
By splitting you have to beat the LD TWICE.
And whether return fire comes from 2 units of 3(after casualties) or 1 unit of 6 is irrelevant. Especially because split fire works for MSU as well! So "greater percentage" is actually irrelevant because number of models left(combined) is what counts.
This is basic math. Why so hard to accept and defend undefendable claim? It's not even like game rules suck if MSU gets benefit from morale rules as hordes get boost elsewhere so even white knights shouldn't have that huge incentive to deny advantage that is so obvious to not make it worth defending.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Yea, I guarantee that you guys are missing a big piece of the picture. MSU is not likely to win you games.
Maybe. Maybe not. Apart from deathstars which have been removed from the game with keyword and/or IC removal MSU is what's been winning games for decades.
But you are right it's not everything there is to factor. I'm talking about just survivability where MSU has advantage. That's simple fact. Hordes have advantages elsewhere like h2h and maybe command points. Whether that's enough to break decades old tradition when MSU so far has been getting several big boosts remains to be seen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
privateer4hire wrote: There is downside to MSU in that:
Survivability of the individual units
Potentially more battleshock tests (will be mitigated in high Ld units, admittedly)
If they follow AoS unit construction, you don't get as many special weapons unless you invest in fully-stocked squads.
Sure, you may get 1 special weapon but the 10 man squad will get 2 and possibly more.
First isn't all that important. You lose 1 squad, you still have second.
Second is newbie trap for bigger unit player. If he's newbie enough to try to cause more battleshock he's going to lose even more games.
As for third...1 squad with 2, 2 squads with 1. Funny enough both times you have 2. And frankly doubtful they are going to change unit constructions all that much. Tactical squad ain't tossing 3 melta guns any time soon. If anything MSU favours this as you have more veteran sergeants to give combi weapons. This is actually one reason MSU has been used before. MORE special weapons into table than big squads!
macluvin wrote: Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?
Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?
I mean I can give you a summary:
"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."
Yeah, I'll certainly agree with you here. That "Article" on Chaos was like a Beasts of War summary, and about as useful...
macluvin wrote: Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?
Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?
I mean I can give you a summary:
"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."
Yeah, I'll certainly agree with you here. That "Article" on Chaos was like a Beasts of War summary, and about as useful...
TBF it's not Frankie's fault. If he had given you rules Frankie would be buried in litigation and out of a job.
Sure, and it's not his fault given the constraints he's under, but it doesn't stop it from being essentially pointless. As HBMC said, it amounted to "Everything is going to be awesome? You know how things aren't all awesome now? Well, that will change, because everything will be awesome!"
Oh, and I'm sure Frankie doesn't have the means to publish stuff on WHQ by himself, so there would be no worries about litigation, and he'd only be out of a job if he works for GW...
If we can take any conclusions from AoS, there will be lots of abilities giving "target unit within X" +1 to Y". That balances quite a lot the case between 1x10 and 2x5.
ERJAK wrote: TBF it's not Frankie's fault. If he had given you rules Frankie would be buried in litigation and out of a job.
Plenty of ways he could have made it more interesting article without divulging rules though(and frankly if GW is showing morkanaut etc stats why not like berserker stats? Not like one unit is big leak even if the rules in the end arent' free). Like comments what was particularly challenging to playtest or some description of armies he playtested etc.
ERJAK wrote: TBF it's not Frankie's fault. If he had given you rules Frankie would be buried in litigation and out of a job.
Plenty of ways he could have made it more interesting article without divulging rules though(and frankly if GW is showing morkanaut etc stats why not like berserker stats? Not like one unit is big leak even if the rules in the end arent' free). Like comments what was particularly challenging to playtest or some description of armies he playtested etc.
In publishing there are things called editors. Even if he'd added (say) Berserker stats, they would have been removed if GW didn't want them out there. What they're doing is drip-feeding us information at the rate of 1-2 articles a day. It's a clever move, avoids people engaged with their webpage and coming back daily (generally) and prevents people from potentially feeling overwhelmed if they'd dumped a bunch of rules on us all at once - instead there's a snippet and then a day of reflection (and community discussion - look at this thread!) on each daily snippet. With the release around mid-June, we've likely got another month of this, and as long as they continue to have more hits that misses, then I'm ok with it.
Yes! They are right 486 bolter shots to kill a Dorkanaut. Emperor be praised! Could this be the balancing prophecy fulfilled????
@HBMC : THIS WAS AWESOME!
"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."
In publishing there are things called editors. Even if he'd added (say) Berserker stats, they would have been removed if GW didn't want them out there. What they're doing is drip-feeding us information at the rate of 1-2 articles a day. It's a clever move, avoids people engaged with their webpage and coming back daily (generally) and prevents people from potentially feeling overwhelmed if they'd dumped a bunch of rules on us all at once - instead there's a snippet and then a day of reflection (and community discussion - look at this thread!) on each daily snippet. With the release around mid-June, we've likely got another month of this, and as long as they continue to have more hits that misses, then I'm ok with it.
There's a fairly wide gap between posting full stats and 'Berzerkers are good. You'll want to use them now! '
Some sort of clues as to how units had been improved would have helped that article considerably, even without actual stats.
In retrospect, the Chaos Marines article has been cleverly written than one might think at first glance:
Its overall layout wasn't neat and its structure was a bit corrupted. It obviously was heavily edited and changed. It was supposed to convey sensations of awesome feelings. Not to mention all the rage and anger it has caused...
But seriously, it was either written under strict guidelines or cut accordingly afterwards. Normal procedure in case of a new product release for a large company. Happens all the time on the so called 'community webpages' maintained by the manufacturer.
Regarding splitfire and multiple enemy units - any mathammer fan should also not forget the case when those units have already suffered some casualties.
If you have, let say, a 10 men or so squad, and there are two enemy units nearby: one with 3 out 5 and the other still in full strength you can obviously risk splitting fire (it does not have to be done evenly, you know) between them. For the smaller one even one casualty reduces combat effectivenes regardless if it causes Ld test or not.
Also Ld tests are done later in the turn, not immediately after this particular shooting and all the models killed before count cumulatively - sometimes it's worth to chip a squad a bit because of possible later casualities.
Some sort of clues as to how units had been improved would have helped that article considerably, even without actual stats.
That's exactly right. And if GW aren't yet at the point where they were going to allow that level of detail (even without rules) then it renders the article pointless.
I think the article was more of a clarification. We knew that heavy weapons can move and shoot and terminators have 2 wounds. The article confirmed that with those changes, the units where that matters the most should be much better.
ERJAK wrote: TBF it's not Frankie's fault. If he had given you rules Frankie would be buried in litigation and out of a job.
Plenty of ways he could have made it more interesting article without divulging rules though(and frankly if GW is showing morkanaut etc stats why not like berserker stats? Not like one unit is big leak even if the rules in the end arent' free). Like comments what was particularly challenging to playtest or some description of armies he playtested etc.
In publishing there are things called editors. Even if he'd added (say) Berserker stats, they would have been removed if GW didn't want them out there. What they're doing is drip-feeding us information at the rate of 1-2 articles a day. It's a clever move, avoids people engaged with their webpage and coming back daily (generally) and prevents people from potentially feeling overwhelmed if they'd dumped a bunch of rules on us all at once - instead there's a snippet and then a day of reflection (and community discussion - look at this thread!) on each daily snippet. With the release around mid-June, we've likely got another month of this, and as long as they continue to have more hits that misses, then I'm ok with it.
Yes but I said that it wouldn't really kill GW to put up one chaos unit stat. It's not like those are super mega hyper secret based on that they have been showing themselves those! Editors can just as easily INSERT those as remove...
And who's saying all at once? As it is that article gave us NOTHING. You could literally go to web store and read same marketing speech from there. Look at the other snippets. Those HAVE given us concrete rules(as it is you could already play simple 8th ed game with what we know...) and actually whetted fans appetite. This article gave _zero_. It's standard marketing speech. Stuff you find on web store.
Driven into battle by the frenzied need to kill, Khorne Berzerkers slaughter everything in their path and leave nothing but twitching corpses in their wake.
In practice they don't get to combat and even if do aren't even that good at it!
But anyway that wasn't even main point but that there would have been tons of ways he could have done that a) provides actually something interesting than copy&paste marketing speech b) doesn't reveal unit stats.
That's not automatically a good thing. It would be far better for everyone to be talking about how they can't wait to get some Berzerkers on the table than for everyone to be taking about how rubbish the article was...
Yes but I said that it wouldn't really kill GW to put up one chaos unit stat. It's not like those are super mega hyper secret based on that they have been showing themselves those! Editors can just as easily INSERT those as remove...
They decided not to add in a Chaos unit statline in an "opinion" piece. Who gives a feth? Why are you so butthurt about it? We haven't seen any rules for Tau yet. Just relax.
And who's saying all at once? As it is that article gave us NOTHING. You could literally go to web store and read same marketing speech from there. Look at the other snippets. Those HAVE given us concrete rules(as it is you could already play simple 8th ed game with what we know...) and actually whetted fans appetite. This article gave _zero_. It's standard marketing speech. Stuff you find on web store.
I was talking in general terms about lots at once vs drip feed. And I agree that the Chaos article was useless/pointless. I think the difference between us is that I'm happy to poke fun at it once and then forget it exists (aside from using my time to have an important argument on the internet), while you seem a little more intent on raging about it's lack of rules.
But anyway that wasn't even main point but that there would have been tons of ways he could have done that a) provides actually something interesting than copy&paste marketing speech b) doesn't reveal unit stats.
And I do agree that even without rules it could have been better, but we don't know how much it was edited before making it to the web. I appreciate the WH-Q site a lot, but there's a typo in the preamble to the Chaos article, so who know's what the quality of their editors for that site are like?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, despite the little argument/discussion we're all having here, I think we can all agree on "Do it well or don't bother doing it at all." should apply for these articles, and that this one fell short.
Now I'm off to build some Berserkers. For some reason I'm now super-pumped about them. Even if I can't for the life of me figure out why...
privateer4hire wrote: Split the attacks between the 2 x 5 units and now both have to take battleshock tests, potentially risking additional casualties to fleeing.
As they are smaller, every loss takes a greater percentage away and also reduces the number of attacks coming from each MSU.
Sheesh that's what I'm talking about. You split in hopes of causing battleshock you REDUCE casualties you cause. Due to the way battleshock works that's GOOD for MSU. MSU player WANTS YOU to do that and every time you do what your opponent wants you to do you should know you are doing something wrong.
LD5. You cause 1 casualty. You cause in average 3.5+1-5=-0.5 casualty. If you had caused 1 casualty more it's 0.5 casualty in average. 3 casualties? 1.5 casualty. Basically every kill means ANOTHER model dying. 2 at the price of 1!
By splitting you have to beat the LD TWICE.
And whether return fire comes from 2 units of 3(after casualties) or 1 unit of 6 is irrelevant. Especially because split fire works for MSU as well! So "greater percentage" is actually irrelevant because number of models left(combined) is what counts.
This is basic math. Why so hard to accept and defend undefendable claim? It's not even like game rules suck if MSU gets benefit from morale rules as hordes get boost elsewhere so even white knights shouldn't have that huge incentive to deny advantage that is so obvious to not make it worth defending.
As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.
Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.
MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.
Yea, I guarantee that you guys are missing a big piece of the picture. MSU is not likely to win you games.
Maybe. Maybe not. Apart from deathstars which have been removed from the game with keyword and/or IC removal MSU is what's been winning games for decades.
But you are right it's not everything there is to factor. I'm talking about just survivability where MSU has advantage. That's simple fact. Hordes have advantages elsewhere like h2h and maybe command points. Whether that's enough to break decades old tradition when MSU so far has been getting several big boosts remains to be seen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
privateer4hire wrote: There is downside to MSU in that:
Survivability of the individual units
Potentially more battleshock tests (will be mitigated in high Ld units, admittedly)
If they follow AoS unit construction, you don't get as many special weapons unless you invest in fully-stocked squads.
Sure, you may get 1 special weapon but the 10 man squad will get 2 and possibly more.
First isn't all that important. You lose 1 squad, you still have second.
Second is newbie trap for bigger unit player. If he's newbie enough to try to cause more battleshock he's going to lose even more games.
As for third...1 squad with 2, 2 squads with 1. Funny enough both times you have 2. And frankly doubtful they are going to change unit constructions all that much. Tactical squad ain't tossing 3 melta guns any time soon. If anything MSU favours this as you have more veteran sergeants to give combi weapons. This is actually one reason MSU has been used before. MORE special weapons into table than big squads!
MSU is the way to go only for elite shooting units (which to be honest there are a lot in 40K, from tac squads to necron warriors)
For troops you will want bigger units to grab those nice bonuses they will surely get. For example, i'm almost sure that hormagaunts will have +1 attack as long as they are 20+ models in the unit.
You are going to MSU your troops only if you are not interested in them and just have to pay the tax.
For assault units you will want big numbers. They strike as one, easily pile into more units and they have more access to buffs.
This last point is particularly important, larger units conga line better into auras and are better targets for unit wide buffs.
Hollow wrote: Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.
But the concepts of small-arms and anti-tank weapons aren't abstract, so even when talking about fictional weaponry it shouldn't be too hard to determine what would be realistic in context/universe.
Exactly. Even a fictional universe should have its internally consistent rules: there is a reason 40k doesn't feature pistols with S10 AP1 72" range. Or Ratling-sized model with S10 T10 8 Wounds, and so on...
macluvin wrote: Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?
Given the Chaos article we got, do we even want more of these 'faction focus' fluff pieces?
I mean I can give you a summary:
"Oh Astra Militarum are going to be great. Just great. They're really going to be the best. Trust me. Rough Riders? Ogryn? They're going to be fantastic in the new rules. Really, really good. And tanks? They're going to be amazing. You're going to win games with your tanks. So much winning. You'll probably get sick of winning! And don't forget your infantry. Infantry are going to be great. We're going to build a big wall of infantry, right across the table. And we'll make the Tyranids pay for it! It'll be great."
Yeah, I'll certainly agree with you here. That "Article" on Chaos was like a Beasts of War summary, and about as useful...
Frankie is basically guaranteed to be under NDA and only to be allowed to give the most general of descriptions of stuff that GW hasn't oficially made public yet. The best he can do is acknowledge and highlight units that were bad/underperformed in the past (Abbadon, Havoks, etc.) to imply that the rule writers did pay attention to them and improved them, as well as giving hints which and the most general descriptions of units he thinks will be worthwhile/good now. Add in that he wants to write a fluffy article and you end up with something like that, especially if GW is giving him restrictions (and likely went over it and send it back to him to re-write some stuff where he got too close for comfort) and you end up with something like that.
I don't mind really, it's still additional information and hints and most importantly the faction previews don't replace the daily rule previews/sneak-peaks, and as long as they do not take anything away from those then no harm is done, it's just additional stuff you can read and glimpse some implied changes from.
And that was one article from one guy, let's see what the other playtester guest authors cook up first.
privateer4hire wrote: There is downside to MSU in that:
Survivability of the individual units
Potentially more battleshock tests (will be mitigated in high Ld units, admittedly)
If they follow AoS unit construction, you don't get as many special weapons unless you invest in fully-stocked squads.
Sure, you may get 1 special weapon but the 10 man squad will get 2 and possibly more.
Not to mention that equipment like banners might hand out serious bonuses to the whole squad (think 5th edition Grey Hunter Wolf Banner) that would be either too pricy for MSUs or not even available under a certain model size. As well as characters likely handing out single-unit buffs AoS-style that would be wasted for MSUs as well and result in weak synergies.
Not saying that MSUs won't be an option, but they already lost one of their two biggest advantages that made them dominant (forcing units to overkill small units or ignore them and messing with target priority in general by having more units than you can shoot at).
For example: You might have 2 Grey Hunter squads with 2 meltas each facing a close combat dreadnought and two MSU marine squads with plasma. In this edition you will be forced to either shoot both MSUs and ignore the the dread who will then rip a squad apart in CC, shoot the dread and one squad, possibly finishing off neither and leaving the third untouched, or soley focus on taking out the dread with the AT weapons for a guaranteed kill, waste your entire small-arms damage potential and leave your squads open to be plasma'd by the MSUs.
In 8th edition your Meltas and missiles will fire and take out/cripple the dread while your bolters (and any left-over special/heavy weapons from one of the squads if the other one already finished the job fire at and murder one and a half or even both MSUs. Even if the Special weapon guy survives alone he will run off the table on a 4+.
Sure, if scoring units work as they do now MSUs will still give you plenty board control and allow you to spam e.g. Chimeras, but I rather see it as a playstyle choice rather than it being strictly better than bigger units as it is now, especialy with morale buffs for large units/from characters for single units being almost guaranteed. And that's before considering kill-point based victory conditions being a rather likely scenario or taking stuff like Smite (good luck keeping you special weapons around when D3 out of your 5 troopers get mortal-wound instagibbed) or multi shot rend weapons into account.
Someone already mentioned this, but noone commented it. What if the buy in for a unit is actually higher than to just boost the modelcount? Say 5 marines 75 points, but 13 points to add more to this squad? Isn't that the way 30k handles it? I guess I would be fine with this. Counting in some AoS style boosts for to hit or to wound when reaching X models in a unit could be a good balance to the moral system punishing larger units.
Yes but I said that it wouldn't really kill GW to put up one chaos unit stat. It's not like those are super mega hyper secret based on that they have been showing themselves those! Editors can just as easily INSERT those as remove...
They decided not to add in a Chaos unit statline in an "opinion" piece. Who gives a feth? Why are you so butthurt about it? We haven't seen any rules for Tau yet. Just relax.
I'm not buthurt. I'm pointing out how USELESS that article was. It archieves nothing. At least positive. Look at the other articles that generate positive hype. Those are the kind of articles they should be releasing IF they want to build up hype and make cash.
This kind of article hurts themselves. And it's so silly they did as they could have done EASILY article that actually generates positive interest. Without even releasing stats.
They didn't even release "opinion" piece but marketing speech straight from marketing department. That's so edited text doubtful there's anything original left except maybe units he chose to talk about if even that...
But sure forget about any critique. If post isn't 100% praise to GW about how they can do no wrong don't post. That's your attitude eh?
And btw obviously you don't just forget since you are so vehemently defending the article.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rhavien wrote: Someone already mentioned this, but noone commented it. What if the buy in for a unit is actually higher than to just boost the modelcount? Say 5 marines 75 points, but 13 points to add more to this squad? Isn't that the way 30k handles it? I guess I would be fine with this. Counting in some AoS style boosts for to hit or to wound when reaching X models in a unit could be a good balance to the moral system punishing larger units.
That's how HH does it and as I said with luck GW is smart enough to borrow it. That way if despite all the boosts horde might be getting MSU is still superior like it's been like from rogue trader it would nicely be reflected in points. Good idea and no wonder HH has it as FW designers are more competent than GW ones. With luck it ports itself into 40k as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Can't say I like the change on the to wound chart but I won't get into this discussion again since I had it with AoS.
Which means I'll jump right into the pudding - do we have any inkling on the book prices yet?
So far only this: "Every army gets rules day one. 5 books, rules for all armies split across these. (low price point mentioned, a lot less than a codex) "
So less than a codex for 8th ed it looks. Not bad at all.
On the large models article they never realy talked about how many weapons can large models fire in a turn. MC's use to only be able to shoot two weapons a turn, and in some editions you can more or less freely fire all the weapons on a tank. Some you were limited by how many you could fire.
After the article on infantry, and re-reading the large models article, I wounder if lage models can shoot all their guns in their profile now?
I can't see the rule being a blanket "you get to shoot everything" rule, or eals space marines get to shoot their bolters AND bolt pistols witch is kinda funky.
Cannot wait to see how characters work in 8th. Very very curious... I think I'm closing in on a 100 Ultramarine characters (if you count sergeants)... but it want balance and good (smooth) gameplay. Having taken a year off of 40k and played X-Wing and 1page40k, I've really got to appreciate the depth that more streamlined rules can still have... and I hate spending half of a game either looking up/explaining/debating rules at the club... I just want to play again already
Lockark wrote: On the large models article they never realy talked about how many weapons can large models fire in a turn. MC's use to only be able to shoot two weapons a turn, and in some editions you can more or less freely fire all the weapons on a tank. Some you were limited by how many you could fire.
After the article on infantry, and re-reading the large models article, I wounder if lage models can shoot all their guns in their profile now?
I can't see the rule being a blanket "you get to shoot everything" rule, or eals space marines get to shoot their bolters AND bolt pistols witch is kinda funky.
Well that's how it works in AOS so there's predecent. But guess that could be prevented by having fire all on rule in some keyword shared by monsters and tanks?
MaxT wrote: More likely that Space Marines lose their Bolt Pistols by default !
That\s also possibility depending on do they count that as violating "every model remains" or not(since that would leave plenty people with pistols that no longer exists but so minor that maybe they let that pass)
Also potential issue if rapid fire prevents assault which is what for pistol was added in the first place.
Hollow wrote: Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.
But the concepts of small-arms and anti-tank weapons aren't abstract, so even when talking about fictional weaponry it shouldn't be too hard to determine what would be realistic in context/universe.
Exactly. Even a fictional universe should have its internally consistent rules: there is a reason 40k doesn't feature pistols with S10 AP1 72" range. Or Ratling-sized model with S10 T10 8 Wounds, and so on...
But it could. There's no real reason those weapons couldn't exist within the world of 40k. In fact, it's kinda dumb that they don't, the tiny gun devastating mountainsides is a staple of sci-fi.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Can't say I like the change on the to wound chart but I won't get into this discussion again since I had it with AoS.
Which means I'll jump right into the pudding - do we have any inkling on the book prices yet?
So far only this: "Every army gets rules day one. 5 books, rules for all armies split across these. (low price point mentioned, a lot less than a codex) "
So less than a codex for 8th ed it looks. Not bad at all.
Not bad at all indeed .
But let me get this straight - we'll have 5 faction books + General handbook? And the faction books will be cheaper than codices?
Hollow wrote: Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.
But the concepts of small-arms and anti-tank weapons aren't abstract, so even when talking about fictional weaponry it shouldn't be too hard to determine what would be realistic in context/universe.
Exactly. Even a fictional universe should have its internally consistent rules: there is a reason 40k doesn't feature pistols with S10 AP1 72" range. Or Ratling-sized model with S10 T10 8 Wounds, and so on...
But it could. There's no real reason those weapons couldn't exist within the world of 40k. In fact, it's kinda dumb that they don't, the tiny gun devastating mountainsides is a staple of sci-fi.
But there aren't any of those in 40k. Well, not yet anyway. And that's the whole point.
And to be honest not all sci-fi staples need to exist in a sci-fi setting.
kestral wrote: 40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.
Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.
Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?
kestral wrote: 40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.
Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.
Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?
I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.
If I bring a leman russ I expect it to be a major threat not something a bunch of grots can destroy.
kestral wrote: 40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.
Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.
Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?
I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.
If I bring a leman russ I expect it to be a major threat not something a bunch of grots can destroy.
Fair enough I don't think there will be a justification that will suit you for this - it may change in a year or so after release but it might not.
Personally I am happy with it - everything can hurt everything yes, but its not like there is an equal chance of doing so
So those Grots will be trying to get past the Leman Russ toughness of what 8, 9 or 10? then its armour save of maybe 2+ or 3+.
Its not impossible but its not likely - you might do very minor cosmetic damage to a undamaged Russ but if one is limping around, torn open by heavy weapons fire and half destroyed - then they might do something significant.
It also means that potentially there is always a chance for units to do something - no matter what you have left on the table.
kestral wrote: 40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.
Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.
Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?
I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.
If I bring a leman russ I expect it to be a major threat not something a bunch of grots can destroy.
The only way a grot can destroy a tank is if they are really, really lucky.
Sort of how there's a minuscule chance that a revolver bullet might hit something important in a tank.
Especially if that tank has already been ravaged by anti-tank weapons and might now have big, gaping weak points.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The only way a grot can destroy a tank is if they are really, really lucky.
Sort of how there's a minuscule chance that a revolver bullet might hit something important in a tank.
Especially if that tank has already been ravaged by anti-tank weapons and might now have big, gaping weak points.
Problem isn't unlikely scenario of grots destroying undamaged russ by themselves. Problem is having ability to even hurt in a first place it shouldn't have.
Grots shoot, knock of wound. Your "might have big gaping weak points" doesn't even apply here. Or do the gaps appear out of future somehow conveniently?
Lascannon hits, finishes of. Without grot wound that wouldn't have happened.
That is something that should not happen if game doesnt' want to break all sense of disbelief.
Ah well. Won't happen in our games and even if I go to tournament I won't be even rolling those attacks regardless of situation.
The only way a grot can destroy a tank is if they are really, really lucky. Sort of how there's a minuscule chance that a revolver bullet might hit something important in a tank. Especially if that tank has already been ravaged by anti-tank weapons and might now have big, gaping weak points.
But what's the point then if for sake of realism something has to be made so unlikely it's hardly ever going to happen? Seems to me it is only going to add relatively pointless dice-rolling for miniscule chance of something actually happening. That was, after all, one of the grievances of 7th edition - too much stupid rules like Soul Blaze or Mysterious objectives where you rolled dice for some effect which usually wasn't going to do anything.
When Germans first met KV-1's, their reaction was not to shoot it bit more with Kar98's. No, they tried to assault it with satchel charges, or flank it with tanks, or bring in more powerful anti-tank guns, etc.
Could we stop "discussing" the Lasguns That Obliterate Superheavies nonsense? I really don't think that a whole army focus-firing a single tank with small arms fire for five turns to maybe destroy it at the end of the game is a viable tactic, to say the least. What about cover? Range? LOS? The fact that the enemy most likely has several other units that remain unscathed in the meantime? Objectives?
Anyway, I'm really curious about the IC stuff. Not that DE care much about their ability to join units and such, though I definitely would like to know what my badass Biker Chaos Lord can or cannot do in this brave new edition.
I suppose you can come up with ways a vehicle could be damaged by small arms fire.
Some of the top of my head:
Bullets tearing the mounted hoses to lascannons or their barrels, causing damage when attempting to fire.
Exhaust systems and or air intakes becoming inoperable and choking the engine.
Life support systems being compromised, so many small lasers firing at the the vehicle cause it overheat and detonate fuel, or cook the crew, or concussive force debilitating them
Sensors being destroyed on the vehicle so it's no longer able to participate.
SarisKhan wrote: Could we stop "discussing" the Lasguns That Obliterate Superheavies nonsense? I really don't think that a whole army focus-firing a single tank with small arms fire for five turns to maybe destroy it at the end of the game is a viable tactic, to say the least.
Problem isn't lasguns taking out land raiders here and there on their own. Problem is a) total lack of believability which destroys suspense of disbelief(btw you don't automatically have that by having dragons etc so don't bother taking that arqument...Funny that but you can have fantasy AND realism at the same time) and b) can have big effect it shouldn't have. It's possible to have game decided by _one_ wound that goes through early in the game. Which then blows out all suspense of disbelief.
Shuma-Gorath wrote: If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.
It's certainly realistic. It also makes for an awful gaming scenario in any system that wants to make a hundred grots with revolvers a viable option.
The new vehicle rules are an attempt at balancing a diverse range of options better than the old system did. Given a choice between balance and realism, I'll always pick balance.
There's an entire entry about ways infantry take out tanks on wikipedia if the realism is what bothers you. I always thought tanks were fairly susceptible to infantry getting to them which is why they usually have to be supported by infantry to keep enemy infantry away.
"Infantry close assault
The tank is still vulnerable to infantry, especially in close country or built-up areas. Rough terrain may expose the floor armor, and high ground such as multi-story buildings may expose the top armor. Their large size and loud noise can allow enemy infantry to spot, track and evade tanks until an opportunity presents itself for counter-attack.
Because tank crews have limited visibility from inside the tank, infantry can get close to a tank given enough concealment and if the hatches are closed. If tank crewmen unbutton for better visibility they become vulnerable to small arms fire, grenades and molotov cocktails. An infantryman cannot be targeted by a tank's main gun when close, as it cannot depress sufficiently. Close defense weapons such as pistol ports, hull-, coaxial- and pintle-mounted machine guns gave them some protection however.
Whilst many hand-held infantry anti-tank weapons will not penetrate the front armor of a tank, they may penetrate the less heavily armored top, rear, and sides. Anti-tank weapons can damage the tracks or running gear to inflict a mobility kill. Early WWII tanks had open vision slits which could be fired through to kill the crew. Later tanks' slits had thick glass, as well as sights and periscopes which could still be damaged with powerful small arms such as anti-tank rifles and heavy machine guns, hampering the crew. If all else fails, the hatch could also be forced open and grenades thrown inside, although later tank designs often have hatches designed to be difficult to open from the outside.
Tanks were also vulnerable to hand-placed anti-tank mines. Infantry have even immobilized tanks using a set of plates covered with leaves and dirt as dummy mines – the ruse being augmented by the crew's obscured vision – infantry can then attack the stopped tank. This tactic was taught to the British Home Guard during World War II since they were not often provided with long-range anti-tank weapons.[13]
In some cases in World War II, a tactic of some infantry was to run directly up to a tank, avoiding their main and machine guns, and pour petrol over and into the tank and light it, sometimes blocking the exit, burning the crew alive.[citation needed]
In the Japanese army, the use of satchel charges and pole charges was widespread. Although the charges could knock out any allied tank, the tactic was extremely close-range and the sappers were vulnerable to allied weapons."
Shuma-Gorath wrote:I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.
If I bring a leman russ I expect it to be a major threat not something a bunch of grots can destroy.
I can recognise the issue here, but there's three things to note:
1) The chance to kill a tank is really, really small. Like, less chance than killing a Riptide small. Grots aren't going to be a threat.
2) It's a design choice to make the game easier to learn. The practicality of it is that there's very little reason to fire small arms at a tank, but the chance existing means you can try last ditch efforts. You still won't want to be wasting those shots under normal circumstances.
3) The "average" gun in 40k is basically a miniature grenade launcher, and it still takes several hundreds of shots to kill a walker. It's not the least realistic thing - most tanks wouldn't want to be hit by ~500 grenades.
Backfire wrote:Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.
Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?
For the second point, I think you're confusing arguments. The point is that, normally, it's a terrible idea to fire small arms at a tank, as you will do nearly nothing. However, the change means that super unbalanced lists are marginally weaker because wounds can be chipped off, even if it's not ideal. No-one is pretending you can skip anti-tank weapons, merely that the game is more "balanced" on the merits that unbalanced lists took a, albeit small, hit.
As for the RTS thing, I'm afraid I don't get this contention at all. Damage/wound tracking has literally been in the game for as long as I can remember playing 40k; the sole exception was vehicles, and I'm really not sad about moving away from the 5e system where open topped trucks could be merrily shake off nuclear bombs after being damaged. The idea that flanking and damage type don't matter in an RTS is flat out wrong - almost all RTS tactics rely on these exact things. Likewise, in 8th, I have no idea how you got the notion that flanking or that damage type won't matter - do you intend to allow your opponents to always get cover saves (which now make marines twice as durable against small arms), never push for objectives and hope that they don't bring either hordes or tanks? Unless your battle plan is bringing 500 bolters per enemy vehicle, I can't imagine that you'll find much success in that. As far as I can tell, the only thing we've actually lost is vehicle facings, and in return we gained a functional cover system where all units benefit - seems like positioning will matter more than ever to me.
Isn't there a wrist mounted strength 10 gun in necrons?
Aren't there strength 8 ap1 weapons in most armies?
There are strength 10 and strength D assault weapons scattered around as well.
Let's not pretend there aren't super powered small arms all over the game.
SarisKhan wrote: Could we stop "discussing" the Lasguns That Obliterate Superheavies nonsense? I really don't think that a whole army focus-firing a single tank with small arms fire for five turns to maybe destroy it at the end of the game is a viable tactic, to say the least.
Problem isn't lasguns taking out land raiders here and there on their own. Problem is a) total lack of believability which destroys suspense of disbelief(btw you don't automatically have that by having dragons etc so don't bother taking that arqument...Funny that but you can have fantasy AND realism at the same time) and b) can have big effect it shouldn't have. It's possible to have game decided by _one_ wound that goes through early in the game. Which then blows out all suspense of disbelief.
a) So you find it more believeable that a tank rocks up, and everyone just looks at it and does nothing? Because that is current rules. Yeah, it is more stupid than everyone giving everything they have to bring it down
b) At the moment, tanks can be blown up with one shot much more likely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Isn't there a wrist mounted strength 10 gun in necrons?
Aren't there strength 8 ap1 weapons in most armies?
There are strength 10 and strength D assault weapons scattered around as well.
Let's not pretend there aren't super powered small arms all over the game.
obsidianaura wrote: I wonder if they'll drop vehicle explosions. Looking at the way they're simplifying I'd guess yes.
I don't think there is a vehicle damage table anymore, as well as glancing or penetrating hits, due to the degenerating effects. Though this is yet to be 100%
obsidianaura wrote: I wonder if they'll drop vehicle explosions. Looking at the way they're simplifying I'd guess yes.
I don't think there is a vehicle damage table anymore, as well as glancing or penetrating hits, due to the degenerating effects. Though this is yet to be 100%
I can see them making an entry for this on the general rules' vehicle section. Kinda like "after a vehicle is destroyed roll a d6, on a <insert whatever roll needed> roll there is an explosion that hits all models in a Y radius for X damage."
Rippy wrote: a) So you find it more believeable that a tank rocks up, and everyone just looks at it and does nothing? Because that is current rules. Yeah, it is more stupid than everyone giving everything they have to bring it down
Who says they are doing nothing? It just doesn't help anything even if you imagine them shooting. you can of course actually roll dice if you want them to do something. That's actually what is happening but most just quicken play by not rolling them.
That or they are taking cover facing something they cannot hurt
Lasgun penetrating the front armour of a leman russ and blowing it up - more or less impossible
Lasgun shot knocking out the optics, an exposed power cable, a turned-out driver, etc - very unlikely, but likely enough that if a whole army of lasguns is firing at a tank for an entire game it would probably happen
I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.
2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.
It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.
Really looking forward to see what the score is regarding characters though. I'm guessing they won't join units but they can still affect them, hide beside them and hitch lifts with them.
In the old edition most weapons could hurt a leman russes av10-11 rear i see no issue. It was never a durable tank.
Furthermore Titans will still have regenerating power fields/void shields and IWND likely still exist making small arm fire immunity still existant.
is this the biggest shakeup any edition has ever caused.
