Classic?! mate they have been out 5 years of 30, hardly classic, especially when they altered them for 4 of those 5.
In the crunch yes, but they have consistently been in the fluff for decades. And while 3-5 E powers could at lest be fluffed as specific powers from classic disciplines favored by certatin factions, gak like "interromancy", "phantasmancy" or "geomancy" were pulled out of the ass trumping thousands of pages of the established fluff for no other reasons but to boost sales.
Right, because we all know once you create a lore and setting you can NEVER expand upon it while running a business or else we can be SURE the motives are a money grab... Dude, your straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon with these claims.
Mezmerro wrote: So they dump 5 classic disciplines, instead give every army specific discipline (which fluff-wise only makes sense with Chaos, Orks and Nids) and dumb down Psy phase to AoS level...
- Have you dumbed down 40K?
- Not at all.
- Why should I trust you?
- You really shouldn't. Also we lied to your previous question.
Army specific powers have been in the game longer than BRB powers, no?
But I suppose it is time to get mad again.
No, they haven't. Rogue Trader had a set of universal psychic powers in the main rule book and when it was released there was no such thing as faction specific powers.
Yes they have, he said longer not what was first.
I was responding directly to this line: "Army specific powers have been in the game longer than BRB powers, no?"
And the answer to that question is certainly: "No they haven't. Army specific powers did not exist when the first Big Rule Book (Rogue Trader) was published.
I don't think you understand the concept here.
By your logic 12 sided dice have been existed in 40k for over 20 years now.
That is a false equivalency. The sentence I responded to was a comparative: "A" has been in the game longer than "B." Your 12 sided dice statement has no analogous point of comparison.
I get that you're arguing that longer and first are not always equivalent values. But in this case, I choose to interpret the original sentence to mean "have existed longer," despite the poster saying "been IN the game longer." English, being an imprecise language is always subject to such interpretation. In which case BRB powers have existed longer."
It would be pretty damn difficult to determine how long each type of psychic power was part of a current edition, because so much of that time is concurrent. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.
No, but two nice things would be nice, so far its heading towards a very bad place for my armies.
Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.
Does it have to benefit specific armies in order to be considered a good mechanic?
I'd personally like to have the option of risking friendly fire to take down that very important enemy unit. Granted, it's not really a deal breaker, but I see little reason why we shouldn't be able to do it.
Well, I can't really say how I feel about the Psychic phase. It looks like the game may have sped up a little, but it is hard to say. I might be taking my Librarian out of storage for my Crimson Fists and possibly my Blood Angels. It all depends on what they can accomplish.
I am really disappointed to see Mortal Wounds. What that will likely translate to is D Weapons remaining in the game, just not in name. And you can bet that Eldar will still be able to spam them through Wraith Constructs. It would be different if every army had the ability to throw down Mortal Wounds, but I doubt Space Marines will be getting access to that ability (they didn't have D in 6th or 7th, I doubt they will now).
Overall, the past two days have been less hopeful for me than the rest. I strongly suspect that CC is still going to suck since units can just back up out of combat rather than stay locked in. So what if they can't shoot or whatever, they just opened up the other unit to be shot by the lines they just hid behind.
But, of course, the silver lining is if CC does, indeed, suck, the new rules format means we're not saddled with it continuing to suck for the next 3-5.
Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.
No, but two nice things would be nice, so far its heading towards a very bad place for my armies.
That's how I felt with my Wood Elves at the outset of AoS.
My tune changed after the first time I ran my Waywatchers. They were consistently underperforming in WHFB 8th but just mean as all get out in AoS.
Forget all about your armies. Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
What will make your armies OP or UP, to the ones that are worried about that, will be the "warscrolls" and sinergies between units. So, with this small snipings of the basic ruleset no one should be worried about their army sucking.
And as Azrael13 said, at least if you suck, you will be buffed in less than a year! (Look at Fyreslayers in AoS for reference)
Bobthehero wrote: No, but two nice things would be nice, so far its heading towards a very bad place for my armies.
This is kind of the thing with a piecemeal reveal of rules. Many players are apt to fill in the bits they have no context on with a) pure supposition and b) however it works as of now, simply modified with the new information (and a healthy dose of point a).
If you're the kind of person who looks at things zoomed in like this and is prone to nitpick individual changes without being able to see the whole, then GW's chosen process of hype building is going to drive you nutty. This is especially true since a lot of the missing context will be, say, stats and point costs for your armies let alone the complete ruleset. At the end of the day, a lot of problems with balance are very much down to a lot of minutiae in a particular edition, and folks have proven to be pretty dire at predicting the shape an edition will take without the context of having all the rules in front of them.
So while it might be hard, your sanity will probably thank you if you don't try and build an image of this edition like a jigsaw puzzle being pulled from multiple boxes at random. There may yet be real doom and gloom on the horizon, but it's basically impossible to predict given the info we have.
This isn't the kind of thing where building a pro/con list will work until you can sit down with the whole thing. What's more, no real reason to sweat it yet. The rules are free after all, and as someone that GW has burned innumerable times, even with all that I see in here that I like, I'm not leaping in to a pre-order before I get the full picture.
It will be hard to tell exactly what shape the new meta will take once the rubber hits the road, and it's too late to change it, but too early to start worrying.
Kanluwen wrote: My tune changed after the first time I ran my Waywatchers. They were consistently underperforming in WHFB 8th but just mean as all get out in AoS.
This is where I think many of us are hoping things will go.
The neglected models that were not the latest hotness now will have a "place" in things.
If a real attempt at balance was figured out, no particular model should be garbage.
Tall order compared to what we were used to with GW...
We are even looking at Kharadron AOS models as a means to revive Squats... heresy I know.
a) pure supposition and b) however it works, simply modified with the new information.
I've honestly been semi seriously considering proposing that these two things be temporarily considered a sanctionable offense for the life of the edition change.
Galas wrote: Forget all about your armies. Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
What will make your armies OP or UP, to the ones that are worried about that, will be the "warscrolls" and sinergies between units. So, with this small snipings of the basic ruleset no one should be worried about their army sucking.
And as Azrael13 said, at least if you suck, you will be buffed in less than a year! (Look at Fyreslayers in AoS for reference)
Unless your army is on of those still on the launch pdf 2 years later then your getting diddly squat.
Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.
Are you actually questioning that a lot of players don't think in exactly in that manner?
Hey various kinds of Guard armies have had their moment in the sun in several editions of the game. You can come back and talk to me about prudent pessimism when you've been a Deathwing nut since '96. I'm still waiting on my army to have been good at least once.
At least nothing will ever be as bad as 52 point terminators without an invulnerable save co-existing in the same game as 3rd Edition Craftworld Eldar (why no, I don't miss you at all early 3rd Edition).
Don't even pretend what you're doing is 'prudent'; you're doomsaying based on nothing. You're making up things to be sad about because GW hasn't come out and said 'Bobthehero's faction is guaranteed to win every game and have the best fluff forever.'
Even then you'd probably still complain about release windows or something.
Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.
No, but two nice things would be nice, so far its heading towards a very bad place for my armies.
Hows about the fact that they can no longer be locked in combat? Or that they can no longer be swept when they break? Or the fact that you don't have to space them out to avoid templates/blasts? The fat that you're going to get updated balanced rules? That the broken psychic combos will be gone? Heavy weapons will all be retooled to have a use, instead of having some that are considerer not worth taking? Command points will let you do interesting things with your squads out of sequence and you will get more of them for following fluff, thats not a good thing?
You're massively negative, and have responded sharply against anything thats not a direct buff to shooting/your armies
Hey various kinds of Guard armies have had their moment in the sun in several editions of the game. You can come back and talk to me about prudent pessimism when you've been a Deathwing nut since '96. I'm still waiting on my army to have been good at least once.
None of my armies ever had their time under the sun, really, and now things are towards the few things that made them not 100% terrible/interesting are going to toned down, or removed.
Don't even pretend what you're doing is 'prudent'; you're doomsaying based on nothing. You're making up things to be sad about because GW hasn't come out and said 'Bobthehero's faction is guaranteed to win every game and have the best fluff forever.'
Even then you'd probably still complain about release windows or something.
Uh? Where did I say I wanted to win every games without lifting a finger, I'd like my armies to be doing what they're doing right (perhaps a bit better, because they're kinda bad), and it seems 8th is not going that way. But please, keep telling me what I think and what I am doing, I enjoy conversations with my external brain very much.
Hows about the fact that they can no longer be locked in combat?
That rarely, if ever happened, I have at best 10 guardsmen with WS4 and Carapace armor, having them in CC means they usually died on the charge.
davou wrote: that they can no longer be swept when they break?
See above, I used to joke around that Kriegsmen never, break, they die, because I so rarely had to make LD in CC because they would get wiped out the second they entered CC
Or the fact that you don't have to space them out to avoid templates/blasts?
I guess that's decent, I'll give it to you, but I really don't mind removing Kriegsmen in hordes, its what they do best, after all.
davou wrote: That the broken psychic combos will be gone?
That's a good thing to everyone, not just my army, but yeah, that's nice
davou wrote: Heavy weapons will all be retooled to have a use, instead of having some that are considerer not worth taking?
Between fearless VS shooting and the Quartermaster FNP, I've always been happy with my HWT, people had to wipe them all out instead of relying on low LD to break, but there was always the threat of artillery to take away most S6+ shooting. So between the Aegis and the FNP, others would a bit more firepower than what they'd normally use for run of the mill HWT.
davou wrote: Command points will let you do interesting things with your squads out of sequence and you will get more of them for following fluff, thats not a good thing?
Kind of like orders? So nothing much has changed, really.
davou wrote: You're massively negative, and have responded sharply against anything thats not a direct buff to shooting/your armies
Responded sharply to forseeable nerfs towards what made two not very good armies not terrible. Shooting does not need buffs, but Scions and Krieg don't need nerfs. Furthermore, my biggest gripe with the new ediiton so far (low rend values) apply to both shooting and melee.
Azreal13 wrote: But, of course, the silver lining is if CC does, indeed, suck, the new rules format means we're not saddled with it continuing to suck for the next 3-5.
The addition of the disengage makes me think GW doesn't understand the problems with CC in the first place. And only a year for rules to change? So if CC does indeed suck, it will only be eight years or so as being crap.
The best I am hoping for is for units being able to prevent disengage. Either flat out not allowing it(some units like Khorne BBerserkers are not going to let stuff leave a fight) or by making the disengaging unit have to roll to even attempt a disengage. It should not be free. It needs to have ways to prevent it.
Galas wrote: Forget all about your armies. Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
What will make your armies OP or UP, to the ones that are worried about that, will be the "warscrolls" and sinergies between units. So, with this small snipings of the basic ruleset no one should be worried about their army sucking.
And as Azrael13 said, at least if you suck, you will be buffed in less than a year! (Look at Fyreslayers in AoS for reference)
Unless your army is on of those still on the launch pdf 2 years later then your getting diddly squat.
Actually, no. Tomb Kings are a compedium army and they where nerfed because they where strong (In my opinion the nerf was to hard but well). I don't know if others Compendium factions will be nerfed/buffed in the GHB 2.0
But I doubt they are gonna do the same with 40k. The factions like Wanderers and Freeguild and Greenskins (My primary army) are leftovers from the Old World. They are here if they want to do something with them, but is obviously that they aren't part of the newest fluff and they will be passed in the long run. But 40k hasn't had the same threatemend to his universe.
And ,even if all of the factions we have now just don't receive new models in the next iteration of 40k, well. They are factions big enough I think.
I'll be honest. I prefer that all of my Tau units are viable in one way or the other that new units in the next years!
In the disengagin factor: CC is boring. Yeah yeah, not the movement, the charge, the planification. The actual CC stage is boring. Is just roling dice with 0 capacity to the player to do anything. In the moment two units engage, they enter auto-mode. This new mechanic gives the player a choice to make more tactical decisions. Thats a good thing in my book.
This is sounding suspiciously like a particular nasty brand of pessimism:
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
- George Orwell"
(Oh look it has a video)
Spoiler:
That time is past now right?
Entering the time of Pink Fluffy Unicorns Dancing on Rainbows.
Spoiler:
I can also think we can dispense with the negative waves:
Spoiler:
We all find each other "amusing" as we speculate and can pretend we knew all along what the final product would be like prior to release.
Wait for release.
Play the darn thing straight-up and repeat with a different army.
Give meaningful feedback, GW is in a good position to act on that feedback and update since the document is live and not paid-for paper.
Think of it the same as a newly released game on Steam: work to iron out the bugs with the developer and it just may turn out ok.
Caedes wrote: So much for the whole "gw not turning 40k into AOS"
Everything I've seen says that's exactly what happend. And gathering storm was "the end times"
Personally I have zero interest in the new rules or system and think it's a bad idea. Time to get the eBay account up and running.
PM me the links of the Ebay auctions when you post them please!
Me too!!
Seriously, I get the 'Prudent Pessimism' and 'Cautious Skepticism' - we've all been burned by GW in the past. And, for the most part, they are fairly deserving of some skepticism, but lets get real here. Many of these changes, are necessary for the game to continue. Had 8th ed simply lumped more band-aids on top of the pile they've been applying since 4th ed, the system simply would have collapsed under its own weight. To be fair, I'm not a big fan of the Mortal Wound mechanic, sounds like a way to sneak "D-Weapons lite" into the rules. Also, random run distance, even if it is applied directly into the move phase, is still bad. But threatening to sell off armies (but, please, PM me first if you do!), complaining that your army is going to be ruined, decrying the end of civilization as we know it, simply based on a weeks worth of leaked teaser rules and profiles? That's a little extreme.
Lets at least give GW enough rope to hang themselves, should this edition turns out to be a clustserfeth.
Starter sets tend to be priced fairly low compared to individual contents, is it really that hard to believe?
Assuming those are all full squads, that's more than I've seen in a starter for a long time.
If true, I'll be doubling down!
It's likely whatever the bare minimum size will be for the units.
It is of course a very salty rumour. But a quick comparison of the AoS starter box contents with the individual kits(kinda rough as several of the models in the box still have no direct equivalent) gets £261 of models in a £75 box. A similar rough comparison of the Dark vengeance contents gets £190 worth of models in a £65 box. So with mono pose models in a starter set that's intentionally priced lower its not imposible.
The new rendition of the game sounds very interesting so far. Having not played for 2 years, and almost getting into 40k a few weeks ago, I (for one) will wait to see what new miniatures are released and how game play is actually being received by other gamers. If it falls short, imho, than I can go do Team Yankee or something else.
I mentioned this a few pages back since the news about mortal wounds in 8th but things were moveing prety quick, so would like to bring in up agien. I do still wounder if they might be replacing the Insta-death mechanic in the game. It would make the armour modifier of the lascannon make more sense. Ageist a T4 terminator the D6 wounds would become mortal wounds and kill him outright as expected. But ageist a T7 tank with a +2Sv, said tank would get a +5Sv ageist the lascannon.
If Strength of Toughness can now go over 10, but everything always caps out at your +2 and +6 on the chart it means the higher numbers exist only for the purpose of causing insta-death/mortal wounds. It would also mean that a Strength 15 Titan Weapon is meant to interact with other titans very differently then it would with T3-T7 units with not needing the extra rules for D weapons/super heavies/gargantuan creatures to exist like now. The same profile can now represent these units with out the need for extra rules. If this is what they decided to do, that would be genius on their part.
Lord Kragan wrote: Apparently there's people already planning to do Future Battles: the Eighth Age. Wonder how hard will be their crash.
I wish them luck. Rejiggering the 3-7 framework to comfortably include stuff like flyers and Superheavies will be a tall order.
Probably start from 5th edition and work from there, it was the last time there was a semblance of balance, some broken outliers exempted and before a lot of the extra systems that bloated things were bolted on.
Daedalus81 wrote: So? It's something for people to use in Narrative games.
40K is one of the broadest settings around, with not only a whole galaxy to work within, but thousands of years of history within that galaxy to draw from. You can zoom in on a single sector, sub-sector or even a world within that and tell innumerable stories.
And GW want to take this and boil it down to a few "sanctioned" conflicts?
"But you can still do your own-" Shut up, that's not the point. It's a simplification of the universe, and for something so broad and so rich as 40K that seems like a boneheaded decision.
Not-not-kenny wrote: Wow I have literally no idea whether you're being sarcastic or not.
Daedalus81 wrote: So? It's something for people to use in Narrative games.
40K is one of the broadest settings around, with not only a whole galaxy to work within, but thousands of years of history within that galaxy to draw from. You can zoom in on a single sector, sub-sector or even a world within that and tell innumerable stories.
And GW want to take this and boil it down to a few "sanctioned" conflicts?
"But you can still do your own-" Shut up, that's not the point. It's a simplification of the universe, and for something so broad and so rich as 40K that seems like a boneheaded decision.
Normally I find your complaints reasonable and your sarcasm funny, but I'll be honest. Here I think you are being overly negative and irrational. They can't make 300 differente zones with 3000 different rules. They take a few iconic ones, just like they give you chapter tactics to a few official chapters of Space Marines. Did that mean that they are simplificating the universe?
People still do their own Marine Chapters.
Did GW put out something new? Is the poster HBMC? It's definitely sarcasm/vitriol
Yeah, just it was sarcasm/vitriol when I said how much I love the new industrial terrain, or how it was sarcasm/vitriol when I said how much I like the new Skydorfs, or how it was sarcasm/vitriol when I though all the AoS Tzeentch stuff was awesome, or how it was... and so on and so forth.
I operate on a very simple credit where credit's due system. I don't just hate everything GW does, and my posts clearly reflect that. Maybe if you people fething read them from time to time, rather than assuming, then you'd get that.
changemod wrote: Mortal wounds ignoring invulnerable is ugly, AoS has rare but present saves against mortal wounding that are effectively the AoS version of invulnerable saves.
And it gives us our first exception to an exception to a core rule.
Core Rule: Roll armour save, this save can be modified up or down based on [conditions]. Exception: Invulnerable Saves cannot be modified/ignored. Exception to Exception: Mortal Wounds ignore Invulnerable Saves.
Triple exception comes with the models that can save mortal wounds - you know it will be in there, just like its in aoslol
Just like FnP(3) allows a 3+ feel no pain save
Maybe Eternal Warrior (or a new rule if instagib is still a thing?) will be changed to be the same so EW (6) will have you ignoring mortal wounds on a 6+
I don't know what's worse, that a lot of you can't seem to understand why these changes would annoy people, or that you seem so fething gleeful at the idea of people being annoyed at this.
I don't know what's worse, that a lot of you can't seem to understand why these changes would annoy people, or that you seem so fething gleeful at the idea of people being annoyed at this.
Is totally reasonable to be annoyed.To be annoyed by like 20% of the rules of a complete new edition to the point to categorically said that it will be the worse thing ever and that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them, is a totally different matter.
I don't know what's worse, that a lot of you can't seem to understand why these changes would annoy people, or that you seem so fething gleeful at the idea of people being annoyed at this.
yeah who'd of thought it being not nice to crap on stuff people like/are invested in huh.
Galas wrote: They can't make 300 differente zones with 3000 different rules.
I wasn't suggesting they do, and frankly I don't give a damn about the rules at this stage*. What I'm talking about is cordoning off 40K into specific 'conflict' areas, where the fluff just becomes about those conflicts because those are the sanctioned ones that GW sells specific products for. I don't want to see 40K become just about Baal, Macragge, Fenris, Cadia, Armageddon, Damocleas and whichever other one I'm missing.
I don't Tyranids to become synonymous with Baal because that's where GW put the 'Tyranid v Imperial' conflict. I don't want Macragge to become the "Deathguard vs Ultramarines" Warzone because that's what GW will fluff it as.
Anything that shrinks the universe is a bad idea. It's one of the biggest problems I have with Star Wars, both pre- and post-Disney; everything's got to be related to one another, with nothing able to stand on its own and no expansion possible unless it comes from the central tree.
After 30 (?) years of 40K being so broad, they want to introduce RPG-style campaign settings as the core of the game. If that's what's happening here, then that worries me.
*To clarify, we haven't seen enough of the rules yet to get a clear picture of them. So far movement seems to favour shooting armies, vehicle don't look as tough as they could or should be, a Marine can take a Lascannon hit, and whilst I have no problems with how psychics are shaping up, my main concern is that they're boring like AoS magic, or early 2nd/3rd ed Psychics.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: yeah who'd of thought it being not nice crap on stuff people like/are invested in huh.
But it's ok to ridicule and vilify those that don't like it?
Galas wrote: They can't make 300 differente zones with 3000 different rules.
I wasn't suggesting they do, and frankly I don't give a damn about the rules at this stage*. What I'm talking about is cordoning off 40K into specific 'conflict' areas, where the fluff just becomes about those conflicts because those are the sanctioned ones that GW sells specific products for. I don't want to see 40K become just about Baal, Macragge, Fenris, Cadia, Armageddon, Damocleas and whichever other one I'm missing.
I don't Tyranids to become synonymous with Baal because that's where GW put the 'Tyranid v Imperial' conflict. I don't want Macragge to become the "Deathguard vs Ultramarines" Warzone because that's what GW will fluff it as.
Anything that shrinks the universe is a bad idea. It's one of the biggest problems I have with Star Wars, both pre- and post-Disney; everything's got to be related to one another, with nothing able to stand on its own and no expansion possible unless it comes from the central tree.
After 30 (?) years of 40K being so broad, they want to introduce RPG-style campaign settings as the core of the game. If that's what's happening here, then that worries me.
*To clarify, we haven't seen enough of the rules yet to get a clear picture of them. So far movement seems to favour shooting armies, vehicle don't look as tough as they could or should be, a Marine can take a Lascannon hit, and whilst I have no problems with how psychics are shaping up, my main concern is that they're boring like AoS magic, or early 2nd/3rd ed Psychics.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: yeah who'd of thought it being not nice crap on stuff people like/are invested in huh.
But it's ok to ridicule and vilify those that don't like it?
Ok, with that I can agree! But just as I said to other poster before (Sorry I don't remember your name! It has many _ ) I personally don't invest emotional energies in things that I can't influence in any shape or form. So, I won't like if they reduce all of the gigantisc and beautiful warhammer universe to those 6 zones as you said, but I'm not gonna be worried or pissed neither.
It's worth noting with all this Warzone back and forth that despite their mention in the core AoS rules, very few supplements have ever bothered canonising specific Realms and their rules. The mortal realms are considered essentially infinite. Various tournaments have made tables based on the nine names realms, but they made their own rules.
Galas wrote: ... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...
You know what they say about assumptions...
A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.
Galas wrote: ... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...
You know what they say about assumptions...
A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.
Sorry, I just can't imagine anyone playing Warhammer40k only for the game, having other much better wargames out there
If one don't play it for a combination of fluff-miniatures and then, game aspects and "feel", I don't know how can anyone endure all this years of rising prices and neglection from GW.
Galas wrote: ... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...
You know what they say about assumptions...
A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.
This is 8th edition though, It would be assumed that at some point durring the game's history being on its 8th edition that its not the same as it was previously.
Its like complaining every time a MMO has an expansion that your gear is invalidated, of course it its, its a new 'game' again and everyone starting from square one
Galas wrote: ... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...
You know what they say about assumptions...
A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.
Sorry, I just can't imagine anyone playing Warhammer40k only for the game, having other much better wargames out there
If one don't play it for a combination of fluff-miniatures and then, game aspects and "feel", I don't know how can anyone endure all this years of rising prices and neglection from GW.
I only started for the game, and am just now starting to enjoy painting. I do like building the models in custom ways as well, but I started for the game and stayed because it's the game my friends and I play. I also like the setting a lot, that's helped.
insaniak wrote: A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.
Exactly. And a lot of people are into it for the fluff, not the game. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if it changes it's fluff to make it not the universe they fell in love with any more.
Galas wrote: ... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...
You know what they say about assumptions...
A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.
At this point given how little we've seen of the full rules, unless someone has a real problem with movement stats, armour modifiers and a considerably less brocken Psychic Phase then throwing your toys out of the pram, decalring 8th to be the worst edition ever and vowing to sell your entire colledction right this instant is pure stupidity.
I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of people who just flat out wont like the mechanics for 8th, and thats fine, but until you know the full picture of whats coming and then played a few games to understand how it works in practice these people throwing hissy fits over teasers just look like utter fools.
I have just noticed something. With combat now being alternate activations... will duels between characters be over? Ahhhw man! That was my favourite thing about the game!
If mortal wounds do nothing other than ignore invuls, I'm all for it. Orks have almost no invuls, and those we had were expensive and covered only a few models. We had to spread out boyz to avoid blasts, meaning the kff only covered a dozen models at most.
It's pretty sad watching people complain that they lose their invul from the point of view of someone who never had any.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: I have just noticed something. With combat now being alternate activations... will duels between characters be over? Ahhhw man! That was my favourite thing about the game!
I hope so. In the orks case they weren't duels, they were executions.
Galas wrote: I have just noticed something. With combat now being alternate activations... will duels between characters be over? Ahhhw man! That was my favourite thing about the game!
I hope so. In the orks case they weren't duels, they were executions.
You can still duel with your characters, if you get them into combat with each other and agree to direct all their attacks on each other too. We do it all the time when playing AoS.
Challenges led to things like Power Fists on Characters being very rare. Especially in the case of Sergeants. Perhaps hitting first on the charge might bring them back though. Not that it is going to matter. My Assault Squad will be left like sitting ducks when a Squad of Fire Warriors backs out of combat and opens me up to shooting again. Bye bye Assault Squad. CC might have been subpar in 7E, but at least I could tie up shooty units for a couple turns.
I am curious if anything will be done to give armies with no psychic powers the ability to do anything in the Psychic Phase.
I don't know what's worse, that a lot of you can't seem to understand why these changes would annoy people, or that you seem so fething gleeful at the idea of people being annoyed at this.
Some people are incapable of seeing other's viewpoints, and giddy that others get hurt because that means they win. See - "LIBRUL TEARS LOL"
Some people can't see past the end of their own nose either, and complain because it negatively impacts them, even if overall it's a change for the better.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Challenges led to things like Power Fists on Characters being very rare. Especially in the case of Sergeants. Perhaps hitting first on the charge might bring them back though. Not that it is going to matter. My Assault Squad will be left like sitting ducks when a Squad of Fire Warriors backs out of combat and opens me up to shooting again. Bye bye Assault Squad. CC might have been subpar in 7E, but at least I could tie up shooty units for a couple turns.
I am curious if anything will be done to give armies with no psychic powers the ability to do anything in the Psychic Phase.
If you charged with a lone assault unit to a Fire Warrior Squad with support from other units then the fault of that is in your part. I'm not saying that shooting isn't gonna dominate 8th edition. I'm pretty sure it will, but I don't think CC will suck as bad as 7th, at least, not only because now units can retreat from combat. The unit that retreat can't attack in the same turn, so if they are alone, retreathing is basically useless.
As other posters said, this will favour assaults armis with many units that can assault at the same time, and will punish death-star assault units that just jump from combat to combat to avoid being destroyed by the enemy shooting.
Azreal13 wrote: Some people can't see past the end of their own nose either, and complain because it negatively impacts them, even if overall it's a change for the better.
Oh, internet (And real life too) is so full of this. I'm a Tau player and I'm crying to GW to make CC viable again and nerf the OP things of my army and just make other units viable to use! (Vespids... our time will come!)
Future War Cultist wrote: Going by the new boltgun stats, pulse weaponry probably won't have an AP either. So Tau shooting might be brought under control.
What is a pulse weaponry? I haven't put a Fire Warrior on the table since like November.
Future War Cultist wrote: Going by the new boltgun stats, pulse weaponary probably won't have an AP either. So Tau shooting might be brought under control.
Since when were complaints about Tau shooting about pulse weapons? Nobody complained about Tau pulse rifles or Burst Cannons rendering armies obsolete when Tau had their 4th ed codex (at least in 5th/6th), those complaints started up when the Ion-Riptide and HYMP Broadsides arrived on the scene.
I don't know what's worse, that a lot of you can't seem to understand why these changes would annoy people, or that you seem so fething gleeful at the idea of people being annoyed at this.
I'm not happy that anyone is leaving, and I do understand why people find it annoying.
But when you come into a thread and post "I HATE THE THING I'M LEAVING", I'm not really sure how to respond. Saying goodbye is usually the polite thing to do.
I am going to echo quite a few posts here but I wanted to throw my support behind what we have seen of the 8th edition rules.
My gaming group has been playing 40k now for 25 years, started with Rogue Trader and have played every edition since. We have every army and every model combination possible. We have enjoyed each edition. We love 40k but have become sad that it just does not work as a game system any more.
40k was just becoming too hard to play.
We understood the power variation inherent within the codex system and our games always had a conversation that went something like this; "What power level are we playing, high, medium or low?" We'd end up with an agreement, turn up to play, take a look at the other army and know that we hadn't gotten the power level right. Or we'd run a narrative game where one of us would spend hours building lists, stories and game objectives just so we could be sure we were going to get a balanced fun and full game. Games that are over by turn two simply meant that one of us did not have a good experience.
Good fun, yet competitive, gaming experiences are what we seek.
We all faced the issue that we couldn't play what we wanted simply because of inherent design flaws. I have a beautiful Ork Speed Freak army I'd love to play but loading up boys in trukks only to watch a single 33 point scatter laser eldar jet bike explode it and kill 200 points of boyz and vehicle due to rules which inherently punish my choice is not a good gaming experience or even good game design. A friend has a massive Tyranid army but cant play the horde army he wants because he has to painstakingly make sure that there's 2" between models just so templates dont destroy his army. Again here the game design heavily impacted on the game experience. Yes he should be taking off handfuls of models due to lots of bullets but not at the expense of the actual experience of moving models around in a manner that added literally hours to the game.
I could go on but I hope you are understanding what I am saying.
40k is broken, only a complete reboot can fix it. It needs to be faster, simpler, more abstract, less open to abuse, more model and army inclusive, and finally a good fun gaming experience.
I understand the change anxiety people will be going through. It is a normal part of growth as a human being.
TLDR: I look forward to 8th ed because it is not 3-7th ed.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I don't like the mortal wounds ignoring invulnerable save.
Also why don't the flamethrower make mortal wound? Do the melta make mortal wounds?
Why would a bog standard flamer cause Mortal Wounds?
Alright, only Sororitas flamers then.
Lockark wrote: Their realy wouldn't be any reason for the rule to effect flame throwers in the end, when all flame thrower hits already auto-hits.
How am I going to kill titans with flamethrowers if they don't do mortal wounds?
Alpharius wrote: This thread isn't really for links to eBay auctions, YouTube Videos of Armies being burnt at the stake, etc.
Thanks!
Why do you hate fun, Alpharius.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't know what's worse, that a lot of you can't seem to understand why these changes would annoy people, or that you seem so fething gleeful at the idea of people being annoyed at this.
Someone just got run over by a HUGE Karma Truck and I'm loving it .
Live by the sword and all that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The game needs overwatch. It makes a lot of sense, and it's one of the few rules that I support 100%.
Yes, if you're getting charged, and drawing your sword, you're obviously hurried and maybe even panicked, but getting a pistol shot off, with a negative modifier, is very fair and reasonable in my book.
Even if charged from the flank or rear, troops in a lose formation can turn instantly and still fire. If you were packed into a 17th century style formation, I could see the argument against allowing overwatch if charged, but loose military formations, like in 40k, should have overwatch, and hopefully 360 degree line of sight is still there.
I would agree with this IF overwatch only allowed pistols to be fired. But with the full force of the weapons, it makes too much of a penalty for CC units to charge.
Future War Cultist wrote: Going by the new boltgun stats, pulse weaponary probably won't have an AP either. So Tau shooting might be brought under control.
Pulse weaponry has been a main-stay of the Tau army since their inception. Literally every pure-Tau unit (i.e. not kroot/vespids) has access to some version of S5/AP5. Burst cannons can be taken on every jet-pack suit, as well as all our vehicles, SMS can be taken on our tanks/transports and various suits. Gun Drones have pulse carbines. This was never an issue. No one cares about AP5 shooting. The units not getting saves from pulse weapons weren't getting saves from any other basic infantry weapon in the game either. 72" range S8 AP2 pie plates that ignore cover on a platform that is functionally immortal is an issue. Swarms of S7 missiles glancing everything but LRs to death is an issue. S7 shooting from a unit that, unless playing against other Tau, or an army that has some way to ignore cover, has a 2++ against any shooting that happens more than 12" away and can be taken in a formation that allows you to hit rear armor because 'reasons', is an issue.
You can drop my pulse weaponry to S1 AP6, and it wouldn't affect me in the slightest, nor would it impact at all, any opponent I have.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Someone just got run over by a HUGE Karma Truck and I'm loving it . Live by the sword and all that.
That's not what karma is Hybrid. And who said I was talking about me anyway?
Glass houses and all that.
Fragile wrote: I would agree with this IF overwatch only allowed pistols to be fired.
How does that make any sense though? A line of rifles just sit still whilst Mr. Sergeant blazes away? And for guys that don't have pistols in their basic units (Tau, Guard, etc.). They just have to sit there and take it.
I really liked the way they worked Overwatch back into 40K. It wasn't perfect, but it was far better than the old days of 2nd Ed. I don't see why making it revolve around pistols makes any sense.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Someone just got run over by a HUGE Karma Truck and I'm loving it .
Live by the sword and all that.
That's not what karma is Hybrid. And who said I was talking about me anyway?
Glass houses and all that.
Fragile wrote: I would agree with this IF overwatch only allowed pistols to be fired.
How does that make any sense though? A line of rifles just sit still whilst Mr. Sergeant blazes away? And for guys that don't have pistols in their basic units (Tau, Guard, etc.). They just have to sit there and take it.
I really liked the way they worked Overwatch back into 40K. It wasn't perfect, but it was far better than the old days of 2nd Ed. I don't see why making it revolve around pistols makes any sense.
I think you get the record for most consistent forum-er on dakka. Death, taxes, and H.B.M.C. hating stuff GW puts out.
ERJAK wrote: I think you get the record for most consistent forum-er on dakka. Death, taxes, and H.B.M.C. hating stuff GW puts out.
ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME???
What in God's name has any of what you said above got to do with ANYTHING you quoted?
And did you not read a post of mine on the last page of this thread?:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, just it was sarcasm/vitriol when I said how much I love the new industrial terrain, or how it was sarcasm/vitriol when I said how much I like the new Skydorfs, or how it was sarcasm/vitriol when I though all the AoS Tzeentch stuff was awesome, or how it was... and so on and so forth.
I operate on a very simple credit where credit's due system. I don't just hate everything GW does, and my posts clearly reflect that. Maybe if you people fething read them from time to time, rather than assuming, then you'd get that.
Bobthehero wrote: That rarely, if ever happened, I have at best 10 guardsmen with WS4 and Carapace armor, having them in CC means they usually died on the charge.
Now imagine if that happened when YOU charged someone? There are armies out there with the same toughness, access to no leadership modifications, same weapon skill and no armor whatsoever, that depended on getting across the table on foot. Whether something barely ever happens (which is a lie btw, because I can distinctly recall doing it to you as well as seeing demons and berserkers do it as well ) is a moot point. Its a change for the better, and here you're trying to spin in negatively quite literally because it "rarely happens to you"
Bobthehero wrote: See above, I used to joke around that Kriegsmen never, break, they die, because I so rarely had to make LD in CC because they would get wiped out the second they entered CC
See my repsonce to the last quote; this is a positive change for you included... But there are people who have had to deal with LD 7 and worse for three edditions of this game now, with no access to bubbles to modify LD.
Between fearless VS shooting and the Quartermaster FNP, I've always been happy with my HWT, people had to wipe them all out instead of relying on low LD to break, but there was always the threat of artillery to take away most S6+ shooting. So between the Aegis and the FNP, others would a bit more firepower than what they'd normally use for run of the mill HWT.
Its not possible to make an informed argument suggesting that all types of heavy weapons are equally good. There are some options for weapons that are just not worth considering taking, on tanks and in heavy weapons teams. Despite how well you liked how the HWT perform the fact is that there are plenty of examples in this game of something just outright not being worth taking. Missile launchers for space marines, deffrollas for orks, and I'm sure anyone can point to at least three things their army has access to that arent worth spending points on. The fact that you can buy FNP and fearless and get orders and whatnot again, makes me want to accuse you of having no sympathy to improvements to this game unless they offer you direct buffs.
Responded sharply to forseeable nerfs towards what made two not very good armies not terrible. Shooting does not need buffs, but Scions and Krieg don't need nerfs. Furthermore, my biggest gripe with the new ediiton so far (low rend values) apply to both shooting and melee.
And the suggestion, throughout every announced change has been that your armies will get better if they need to be, or worse if that's needed. Whether they deliver on this isn't something we can know yet, but at the very least they've managed to finally admit publicly that things were askew and needed sorting. All you can take from it though is a cursory glance at whether they make your own toys better, and then immediate dismissal if its not an obvious step up.
You might not realize that you need too, but you need to take a step back and realize that you wont be playing this game in any meaningful way alone... Having some investment making sure the game treats everyone else's toys fairly as well is important.
Rippy wrote: This thread was so good for 100 pages until all of the GW bashers and knights started fighting.
This is a thread of fact, rumour and speculation, not for just venting your personal rage at things we don't know. Take your negativity and kindly feth off please
Did you remember the old Lasgun vs Landraider days? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.
insaniak wrote: Yup, challenges are one of those 6th ed additions that were cool in theory but ridiculously badly executed. Won't be at all sorry to set them go.
agreed, great in concept, poorly executed. Would love for them to be re-imagined.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The game needs overwatch. It makes a lot of sense, and it's one of the few rules that I support 100%.
Yes, if you're getting charged, and drawing your sword, you're obviously hurried and maybe even panicked, but getting a pistol shot off, with a negative modifier, is very fair and reasonable in my book.
Even if charged from the flank or rear, troops in a lose formation can turn instantly and still fire. If you were packed into a 17th century style formation, I could see the argument against allowing overwatch if charged, but loose military formations, like in 40k, should have overwatch, and hopefully 360 degree line of sight is still there.
I would agree with this IF overwatch only allowed pistols to be fired. But with the full force of the weapons, it makes too much of a penalty for CC units to charge.
The hate on Overwatch needs to stop. It didn't affect t-shirt armies like Orks and Dark Elder most of the time and Wall Of Death kills 1 Ork or Wych on average per flamer.
Also the Pistol only being able to do it makes much less sense than a Rapid Fire weapon where you'd be spraying everywhere trying to hit your target.
I wish they would stop calling it overwatch! Overwatch was a 2nd edition rule that allowed a unit to forgo its complete turn in effort to shoot at an enemy when the opportunity presented its self during the enemy's turn. The only sensible way to use overwatch per its intended meaning ( if they are not going to use it like the originally did) would be to allow a friendly unit supportive fire to a unit being charged not the unit its self. That would be a mess to work in to the rules I am sure, call it defensive fire cal lit panic fire but Christ stop calling it overwatch. Sorry for the rant, just hate that they called it overwatch.
Exactly, over watch used to simply be spending your action in your opponents turn rather then your own, sort of like interceptor. Current overwatch doesn't belong in a game where IGOUGO. My models sitting there while you move and fire in your turn represents the actions you took before I charged you, makes no sense that I have to sit there and eat your shooting, then eat more of it in my turn. The hole thing is an abstraction, nobody is just sitting there letting the enemy charge in, your own turn represents the actions you took prior to the assault.
I agree it is far from perfect, but the only way you make a balanced game based on IGOUGO is when I go and only I go, then your go and only you go. It;s the same reason why the most broken faction in the history of GW rules was the Ynarri.
Red Corsair wrote: Exactly, over watch used to simply be spending your action in your opponents turn rather then your own, sort of like interceptor. Current overwatch doesn't belong in a game where IGOUGO. My models sitting there while you move and fire in your turn represents the actions you took before I charged you, makes no sense that I have to sit there and eat your shooting, then eat more of it in my turn. The hole thing is an abstraction, nobody is just sitting there letting the enemy charge in, your own turn represents the actions you took prior to the assault.
I agree it is far from perfect, but the only way you make a balanced game based on IGOUGO is when I go and only I go, then your go and only you go. It;s the same reason why the most broken faction in the history of GW rules was the Ynarri.
Yeah, as excited as I was at the return of a reaction mechanic in 6th Edition, it just wasn't implemented well at all. I love reaction mechanics, but they definitely need a limitation of some kind to reduce their frequency lest they bog the game down. By not really having to sacrifice anything to perform Overwatch in 6th (not even a unit's turn like it was in 2nd) you basically just made more rolling occur.
I wouldn't mind some kind of limited (Command Points?) reaction mechanic in 8th. Spend a CP, give up a unit's turn so they can fire on in the enemy's movement phase (but do so at the classic -1 to hit).
The issue with OW in 2nd was that in objectiveless play (or basically anything where killing was more important than holding terrain) no one had any reason to make the first move if they didn't have to. Terrain could allow folks to get in close, but once the firefight broke out there wasn't a lot of reason to make the first move when you could wait (outside of a few certain army builds where the OW penalty would make them impossible to hit). With Command Points around, you can give OW a proper opportunity cost that it lacked in 2nd Edition leading to it not being a go to if a unit has nothing better to do on its own turn.
Either way, it will be interesting to see whether or not some kind of reaction mechanic is implemented. They've already made assault a lot more involved on both sides of the table, and CPs are already poised to keep folks invested in their opponent's turn, so it might be a natural extension of that. But it wont be horrible if they don't include it either. Proper OW hasn't been in the game for nearly 20 years at this point.
Based on the WD summary under the pre order for the magazine i'd say aside from maybe a a vague image or sneaky preview there won't be squat in it. The magazine might just cover everything released and shown up until now. Which may mean no leaks for a lil while, and gw is going to drip spoon feed us stuff for the next several weeks. Well hopefully I end up being wrong.
Davou I cant quote snip right now, I'll try to make it clear.
The first point is that I rarely get tied up in CC, because of low number of Guardsmen in my squads, they either die (very very comon) or have to roll double ones to stay in (not true during 6th, as they had stubborn). Furthermore, I'd be suprised if I charged more than 20 times, between getting charged myself or rapid fire weapons, there's not point in doing it. Regardless, I'd much rather my guys get swept or die so the arty can put a blast or three on what killed them.
Is there any indication of what the commands are going to do? I already blasts will be gone and it's a safe bet that what makes the two workhorses of the armies good (AP 3) is going to be made worse. These are also elements of my armies that I like, and I am sad they are going away.
All in all I don't like the changes made so far and how they affect my armies.
I was thinking of a way they could have included challenges, and made it not so time consuming. Charge as normal. If a challenge is declared and accepted, then the first wound caused by a character must be taken on the opposite character. That shouldn't slow the game down too much.
cuda1179 wrote: I was thinking of a way they could have included challenges, and made it not so time consuming. Charge as normal. If a challenge is declared and accepted, then the first wound caused by a character must be taken on the opposite character. That shouldn't slow the game down too much.
The best way to make challenges less time consuming is to remove them. It's a pretty terrible mechanic given all "honorable combat" is stupid in the 40k universe.
They said they would for friday, which obviously didn't happen, my guess is that was a bit ambitious. I am betting next week they will release another FAQ or do another Q&A.
cuda1179 wrote: I was thinking of a way they could have included challenges, and made it not so time consuming. Charge as normal. If a challenge is declared and accepted, then the first wound caused by a character must be taken on the opposite character. That shouldn't slow the game down too much.
The best way to make challenges less time consuming is to remove them. It's a pretty terrible mechanic given all "honorable combat" is stupid in the 40k universe.
some of the best moments in the fluff is champions going against each other in one on one combat. But sorry, I am off topic; I will cease
Bobthehero wrote: Davou I cant quote snip right now, I'll try to make it clear.
The first point is that I rarely get tied up in CC, because of low number of Guardsmen in my squads, they either die (very very comon) or have to roll double ones to stay in (not true during 6th, as they had stubborn). Furthermore, I'd be suprised if I charged more than 20 times, between getting charged myself or rapid fire weapons, there's not point in doing it. Regardless, I'd much rather my guys get swept or die so the arty can put a blast or three on what killed them.
Is there any indication of what the commands are going to do? I already blasts will be gone and it's a safe bet that what makes the two workhorses of the armies good (AP 3) is going to be made worse. These are also elements of my armies that I like, and I am sad they are going away.
All in all I don't like the changes made so far and how they affect my armies.
We have seen how high strength, low ap, and templates style weapons work so far.
A Lehman Russ battle tank could very well hit automatically 1-2d6 Times causing 1d3 wounds to each person hit with a -2 to their save as a modifier. How could you possibly see that as something negative? Even on the low end of extrapolating the stat line you could while out a small pile of guys or take most of a monstrous creature out in every shot...
Most of the discussion is about the rules and what people think about them, but how about a release date and how far of it might be?
Simply put, i'm looking forward to a new edition, using my models with new rules, - kinda a new game -, great!
But if they really are going to use the whole month of may to feed us bits of rules then I'm afraid I'm gonna get fed up with it and loose my interest. To be honest I'm already getting tired of viewing new rules bit by bit without being able to play the game.
They are loosing my interest with this way of releasing a new edition and I was wondering how others feel about it.
Most of the discussion is about the rules and what people think about them, but how about a release date and how far of it might be?
Simply put, i'm looking forward to a new edition, using my models with new rules, - kinda a new game -, great!
But if they really are going to use the whole month of may to feed us bits of rules then I'm afraid I'm gonna get fed up with it and loose my interest. To be honest I'm already getting tired of viewing new rules bit by bit without being able to play the game.
They are loosing my interest with this way of releasing a new edition and I was wondering how others feel about it.
I am hyped, and I am glad we are getting releases every day. It gives me something to look forward to and time to digest it, plus it allows for discussion for each aspect as it is released. Much better than having it dumped in our laps all at once.
If you are getting over the dribs and drabs, just stay away until it is released.
Automatically Appended Next Post: plus 10th of June is only a spit away
Most of the discussion is about the rules and what people think about them, but how about a release date and how far of it might be?
Simply put, i'm looking forward to a new edition, using my models with new rules, - kinda a new game -, great!
But if they really are going to use the whole month of may to feed us bits of rules then I'm afraid I'm gonna get fed up with it and loose my interest. To be honest I'm already getting tired of viewing new rules bit by bit without being able to play the game.
They are loosing my interest with this way of releasing a new edition and I was wondering how others feel about it.
The June release is too late with the preview a mechanism every day theme. They will do preview even on weekends that not even MtG don't do. So they have limited time to show us things.
The worst part of overwatch imho was killing the front couple of models and vastly stretching the charge distance. Often this caused the charge to fail, and the unit just sits there and dies. Overwatch has killed more of my units this way than cc ever did. Hopefully 8e will fix this.
JimOnMars wrote: The worst part of overwatch imho was killing the front couple of models and vastly stretching the charge distance. Often this caused the charge to fail, and the unit just sits there and dies. Overwatch has killed more of my units this way than cc ever did. Hopefully 8e will fix this.
Overwatch will most surely be removed as an army wide rule and just added to a select few (or not so few) warscrolls - fire warriors for example.
JimOnMars wrote: The worst part of overwatch imho was killing the front couple of models and vastly stretching the charge distance. Often this caused the charge to fail, and the unit just sits there and dies. Overwatch has killed more of my units this way than cc ever did. Hopefully 8e will fix this.
Exactly. Like a squad of Khorne Berserkers or Death Company are going to be like "They got Dan and Bill! Let's go back!".
Saw this comment on 4chan
Space Marines "rebelling under Guilliman because the Imperium has rejected the Emperor's vision, confirmed in Thursday's twitch stream"
Rippy wrote: Saw this comment on 4chan
Space Marines "rebelling under Guilliman because the Imperium has rejected the Emperor's vision, confirmed in Thursday's twitch stream"
Can anyone confirm, or troll post?
I don't know but that would sound badass. It would also create a new level of the imperium for the story, both loyal, yet both wanting to destroy the other.
Rippy wrote: Saw this comment on 4chan
Space Marines "rebelling under Guilliman because the Imperium has rejected the Emperor's vision, confirmed in Thursday's twitch stream"
Can anyone confirm, or troll post?
Troll post. Gulliman leads the IoM now. why would he be leading a rebellion?
Rippy wrote: Saw this comment on 4chan
Space Marines "rebelling under Guilliman because the Imperium has rejected the Emperor's vision, confirmed in Thursday's twitch stream"
Can anyone confirm, or troll post?
Troll post. Gulliman leads the IoM now. why would he be leading a rebellion?
JimOnMars wrote: The worst part of overwatch imho was killing the front couple of models and vastly stretching the charge distance. Often this caused the charge to fail, and the unit just sits there and dies. Overwatch has killed more of my units this way than cc ever did. Hopefully 8e will fix this.
Exactly. Like a squad of Khorne Berserkers or Death Company are going to be like "They got Dan and Bill! Let's go back!".
It's the combination of the random charge and overwatch casualties being taken from the front that hurt.
If charge ranges were consistent, then you could engineer your charging unit so it could eat a few casualties and still be able to charge, or if random charges were still a thing, overwatch casualties can be chosen by the charging player so it doesn't stop their charge dead.
JimOnMars wrote: The worst part of overwatch imho was killing the front couple of models and vastly stretching the charge distance. Often this caused the charge to fail, and the unit just sits there and dies. Overwatch has killed more of my units this way than cc ever did. Hopefully 8e will fix this.
Exactly. Like a squad of Khorne Berserkers or Death Company are going to be like "They got Dan and Bill! Let's go back!".
It's the combination of the random charge and overwatch casualties being taken from the front that hurt.
If charge ranges were consistent, then you could engineer your charging unit so it could eat a few casualties and still be able to charge, or if random charges were still a thing, overwatch casualties can be chosen by the charging player so it doesn't stop their charge dead.
Generally I blamed the casualties from the front for messing up Foot-Slogging Assault Armies like Green Tide Orks. (If you spread out the squads as wide as possible ageist blast templets), you could end up loseing 2-4 inches of your last movement phase to enemy shooting. But saying that Random Charge distance alongside the "from the front causalities" was sort of a "one two punch" is a pretty fair statement TBH.
The removal of all templates alone could mean positioning units to compensate for these mechanics will be MUCH easier. That's if these mechanics are not removed. Random Charge Distance still exists in AoS, but "from the front" causalities as a mechanic is absent from AoS.
Rippy wrote: Saw this comment on 4chan
Space Marines "rebelling under Guilliman because the Imperium has rejected the Emperor's vision, confirmed in Thursday's twitch stream"
Can anyone confirm, or troll post?
Troll post. Gulliman leads the IoM now. why would he be leading a rebellion?
Is there anything to confirm this though?
Okay just read up on this:
"Guilliman landed on Terra and gained access to the Emperor's Throneroom inside the Imperial Palace. Standing completely alone before the Golden Throne for the next day, Guilliman emerged with a new determination. He gathered the High Lords of Terra and declared that the Imperium would be reorganized and rearmed under his leadership in order to confront the coming threat of Chaos. With that, Guilliman declared himself Lord Commander of the Imperium once more."
Then if that's a cost efficient trade for the assaulter, job done anyway right? Now imagine having 4+ assaults in one turn vs a gun line, which doesn't seem unrealistic at all - you've basically just stopped all those units doing ANYTHING: going for objectives, dealing any damage, repositioning, etc. That's a really big deal, because those units are effectively dead for a turn where you've lost no ground. Being shot in return sucks, but I really doubt, given the playtesters histories of complaining about the useless footslogging assault units, that assault will not be viable or strong.
That is worse than it was in 7th ed for assaulter. Before you were safe from shooting AND got the unit dead. Now unit is safe AND you get shot.
So far no real buffs in rules for assault has been told. Lots of buffs for shooting though
nintura wrote: Well, to be fair, psykers are supposed to be walking levels of destruction. Able to summon storms and wipe out armies.
Well sounds at least cast spell count will go up per psyker. Warp dices brought it down and 8th ed will see numbers go up again. Let's see if spells are toned down to compensate.
"Starter Set The starter set goes live the 17th and is going to be Death Guard Vs. Ultramarines, $120 box. Chaos gets a blob of cultists, a few terminators, a few plague marines, a lord, and drones. Loyalists get 2 tactical squads, a devastator, an assault squad, plus a librarian and a captain. Comes with dice and rulers as well.
In addition, there will be the standard soft cover core rules booklet and a small campaign book. The campaign book has the stats for all the dudes in the box, plus a series of narrative missions that set up the ground floor for the first real story arc of the new edition."
I will be disappointed if a "few" doesn't mean 7 plague marines in this case.
I dislike overwatch and snap shots and would not be sorry to see them gone. Rolling lots of dice hoping for 6s is tedious and slows down the game. On the other hand, I would like some kind of meaningful reaction fire option so that the moment of assault is more critical than the slog forward. But I think you should also have ways to eliminate reaction fire through supporting units.
kestral wrote: I dislike overwatch and snap shots and would not be sorry to see them gone. Rolling lots of dice hoping for 6s is tedious and slows down the game. On the other hand, I would like some kind of meaningful reaction fire option so that the moment of assault is more critical than the slog forward. But I think you should also have ways to eliminate reaction fire through supporting units.
Could be spend command point to fire at full BS, with Tau getting some fancy army gimmick for it.
Then if that's a cost efficient trade for the assaulter, job done anyway right? Now imagine having 4+ assaults in one turn vs a gun line, which doesn't seem unrealistic at all - you've basically just stopped all those units doing ANYTHING: going for objectives, dealing any damage, repositioning, etc. That's a really big deal, because those units are effectively dead for a turn where you've lost no ground. Being shot in return sucks, but I really doubt, given the playtesters histories of complaining about the useless footslogging assault units, that assault will not be viable or strong.
That is worse than it was in 7th ed for assaulter. Before you were safe from shooting AND got the unit dead. Now unit is safe AND you get shot.
So far no real buffs in rules for assault has been told. Lots of buffs for shooting though
Attacking first on the charge isn't a buff? Now that horde of orks have a chance of killing some marines before taking casualties. We'll have to see how morale and assault works. I suspect that they'll bring back consolidate into combat and add something to replace sweeping advance, now that initiative is gone. Speaking of attacking first on the charge and the lack of initiative, I also suspect that all combat will now be simultaneous. Which means that whoever gets the charge will indeed have the advantage, as that would be the only way of denying your opponent retaliation at full squad strength.
Why on earth would you be wanting to use flamers to take down Titans??
Because in the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, there is no Geneva Convention restricting the use of incendiary weapons, and in all likelihood a good crotch-shot with enhanced Greek Fire would wreak absolute havoc on a very tall target full of IT systems and engines and hydraulics and joints that really don't want to overheat.
Why on earth would you be wanting to use flamers to take down Titans??
Because in the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, there is no Geneva Convention restricting the use of incendiary weapons, and in all likelihood a good crotch-shot with enhanced Greek Fire would wreak absolute havoc on a very tall target full of IT systems and engines and hydraulics and joints that really don't want to overheat.
And so a new weapon was born - the incendiary enema.
I think if they remove snap shots,over watch and remove models from the front first, assault would have a huge boost, no need to strike first and that's from a ork player.
Keeping in line with AoS rules being imported in 40K, we can foresee the following buffs for assault (some we already know, some are speculation):
- Shooting is less deadly due to the removal of AP. Rend is a more deadly mechanic only on 3+ and 2+ profiles. Same with mortal wounds, they punish high armor profiles.
- *Speculation* When removing models, the controlling player removes a model of his choice.
- *Speculation* Overwatch is no longer a mechanic of the game, but only a special rule of some models.
- No more templates, you can optimize your formations.
- Assault from transports (was this confirmed?)
- More reliable deepstriking *speculation* with assault from deep strike, but requiring a 9" on the charge most of the time.
- Increased speed on some dedicated melee units, like hormagaunts.
- Chargers strike first. Everything else follows an I GO You GO order.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, remember that the meta will shift A LOT due to the new vehicle and mostrous creatures profiles.
Forget High ROF mid strenght weapons as the way to go, you will never stop a dreadnaught or a carnifex with those (32 Str7 AP -1, like HYMP, hits to stop a dreadnaught compared to the 9 required now). High strenght low ROF weapons will be back in the game, giving a lot more breath to non elite assault units.
Then if that's a cost efficient trade for the assaulter, job done anyway right? Now imagine having 4+ assaults in one turn vs a gun line, which doesn't seem unrealistic at all - you've basically just stopped all those units doing ANYTHING: going for objectives, dealing any damage, repositioning, etc. That's a really big deal, because those units are effectively dead for a turn where you've lost no ground. Being shot in return sucks, but I really doubt, given the playtesters histories of complaining about the useless footslogging assault units, that assault will not be viable or strong.
That is worse than it was in 7th ed for assaulter. Before you were safe from shooting AND got the unit dead. Now unit is safe AND you get shot.
So far no real buffs in rules for assault has been told. Lots of buffs for shooting though
What are you talking about?
No real buffs for assault, apart from charges hit 1st, charge out of any vehicle, fall back rules that leave defenders worthless.
It seems to me, the perfect place to put Overwatch now is as a command point ability. You have to have a whole list of things that feel tactical. Spending a command point to suddenly fire a squad in overwatch seems correct.
Striking first if you charge becomes amazing if you don't have to take casualties from the front anymore. Even with the whole retreat mechanic the fact that you still make at least one unit worthless for a full turn and you get to take full advantage of your assault units that (in the case of Orks especially) classically would get cut down before they could strike is a good trade I feel. People forget that shooting the unit that just got put in the open from a friendly retreat only works if you have the units to shoot them - the game seems to be about making assault as a whole better, deincentivizing death-stars and making numerous assault units more worthwhile. Not having to take casualties from the front (I assume this will be the case) will make charging so much easier, and once you get there, even units like Hormagaunts with sufficient numbers should still tear through most other Troop units with little difficulty. Context is everything.
Consider also that the AP system is gone; Bolters no longer ignore 5+ armour saves....which is what most light assault units in the game like Orks, Hormagaunts, Acolyte Hybrids, etc have. People really need to think deeply about what this means for horde armies now.
Which is huge. A gun that used to be Strength 4 AP5 now grants Ork Boyz an armour save. It's probably a safe bet that the same is true of Gauss Rifles, Pulse Rifles, Splinter Rifles, Shuriken Catapults, etc. i.e. the basic guns of all armies. A 6+ isn't great but it's *something* and there may very well be easy ways to access boosted armour saves through cover.
Also, as others have pointed out, weapons like Scatter Lasers aren't going to do well against new vehicles because it takes crap loads more shots than it used to for them to kill something like a Dreadnought, meaning Bright Lances and the equivalents for other armies will probably start popping up more. That's good news for non-monster/vehicle units and as a result should make even your average assault unit harder to deal with.
Well, I heard flamers are good against hordes, so if I'm facing a horde of titans I need to be able to bring them down using flamers.
Also, this:
lindsay40k wrote: Because in the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, there is no Geneva Convention restricting the use of incendiary weapons, and in all likelihood a good crotch-shot with enhanced Greek Fire would wreak absolute havoc on a very tall target full of IT systems and engines and hydraulics and joints that really don't want to overheat.
ERJAK wrote: I think you get the record for most consistent forum-er on dakka. Death, taxes, and H.B.M.C. hating stuff GW puts out.
ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME???
What in God's name has any of what you said above got to do with ANYTHING you quoted?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rippy wrote: "Guilliman landed on Terra and gained access to the Emperor's Throneroom inside the Imperial Palace. Standing completely alone before the Golden Throne for the next day, Guilliman emerged with a new determination. He gathered the High Lords of Terra and declared that the Imperium would be reorganized and rearmed under his leadership in order to confront the coming threat of Chaos. With that, Guilliman declared himself Lord Commander of the Imperium once more."
This sucks. Having a guy in charge of the Imperium sucks big time already. Having this guy be the big burly space marine++ that doesn't even fit right in the grimdark due to the horus heresy thing about them being enlightened atheist sucks even more.
SeanDrake wrote: Yeah we're heading back to drive the tank closer so I can hit them with my sword teritory.
Meh. Saw that coming with there choice of testers. I would guess horde assault armies will be the goto until the new codes start coming out.
Assault needed it though. In 7th Edition there's almost no point trying to assault with traditional assault armies, meaning death-stars, Genestealer Cult, Skyhammers, etc are the only real competitive assault options. I'd say it's what the game needs as so many units and factions just weren't worth it before, Orks and Tyranids especially needed the love.
Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this. And making it so that shooting is geneally a 'light attack' and assault is more hard hitting is a good way to go. You should be rewarded for making it into assault.
This sucks. Having a guy in charge of the Imperium sucks big time already. Having this guy be the big burly space marine++ that doesn't even fit right in the grimdark due to the horus heresy thing about them being enlightened atheist sucks even more.
They needed a character (Guiliman) to have a confrontation with the main antagonist (abaddon). The lords of Terra being corrupted and relativly unimportant didn't work out for that.
I think I'd like to see overwatch go the way of the Dodo.
Other things I'm keeping my fingers crossed for:
casualties from either shooting or close combat are taken from anywhere in the squad.
Go back to having a unit use it's most common weapon skill and toughness
Have leadership values actual mean something again, and I don't really care how.
Just on the note of Guilliman and Abaddon, it seems likely now that the latter will be getting a snazzy new model at some point. I'm really glad that "dies to a bolt pistol" rumour ended up being just that, I always thought that was just clickbait spread by the usual suspects.
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
kestral wrote: I dislike overwatch and snap shots and would not be sorry to see them gone. Rolling lots of dice hoping for 6s is tedious and slows down the game. On the other hand, I would like some kind of meaningful reaction fire option so that the moment of assault is more critical than the slog forward. But I think you should also have ways to eliminate reaction fire through supporting units.
Could be spend command point to fire at full BS, with Tau getting some fancy army gimmick for it.
Probably not just Tau - some units in AOS get pseudo Overwatch or can flee from combat etc.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
Bit confused by this post - 40k is just as much about the chainsword as the bolter.
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
Because the fictions are about guys that punch things in the face?
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
It's just bit unfortunate that the Warhammer game engine isn't very good if the game is mainly shooting. The igougo mechanic makes the game bit too easily into a competition who rolls most dice. The same problem is in AoS and in the old Whfb. Shooting is/was very powerful in those games and at the same time very non-interactive. Whereas in games like Bolt action /Gates of antares, Epic, Dropzone commander and Infinity it has been balanced with reaction mechanisms and alternating action, so that you cannot freely shoot everything you have. That's why the best 40k editions have been those that had more strength in close combat as it is the best part in Warhammer, no matter the variety.
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
Have you ever played 40k? Read the fluff? Because it sounds like you haven't.
Shooting and assault should try to be as equal as possible. And since shooting has an inherent advantage over assault, assault needs a boost. Even if the two are largely the same in actual damage inflicting power, assault should have more serious consequences. Shooting should pick a few guys off and at best pin you. Assault should rout the squad completely. Deleting entire units via shooting should be reserved for the most powerful of artillery or absolute masses of substained regular firepower.
Future War Cultist wrote: AoS is the way to go for damage allocation. It's so easy to resolve and prevents any shenanigans.
I don't mind the game going hero hammer either.
To use AoS wound allocation you can't put character in units. In AoS you can give them 5 -7 wounds each and that's it. In 40K they would be deleted from the table.
It's already an echo chamber but I'll just add in that the current codex covers for the following factions all feature a character/creature wielding a visible melee weapon;
Deathwatch, Farsight Enclaves, Harlequins, Champions of Fenris, Chaos Daemons, Adeptus Custodes, Space Marines, Astra Militarum, Dark Angels, Tyranids, Khorne Daemonkin, Eldar Craftworlds, Necrons, Imperial Agents, Cult Mechanicus, Genestealer Cults, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Waaaagh! Ghazghkull, Space Wolves, Haemonculus Covens, Imperial Knights, Skitarii, Traitor Legions.
And the list of codex covers that don't feature a character/creature wielding a visible melee weapon;
Tau Empire, Sisters of Silence, Black Legion, Orks, Crimson Slaughter, Militarum Tempestus, Chaos Space Marines.
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
It's just bit unfortunate that the Warhammer game engine isn't very good if the game is mainly shooting. The igougo mechanic makes the game bit too easily into a competition who rolls most dice. The same problem is in AoS and in the old Whfb. Shooting is/was very powerful in those games and at the same time very non-interactive. Whereas in games like Bolt action /Gates of antares, Epic, Dropzone commander and Infinity it has been balanced with reaction mechanisms and alternating action, so that you cannot freely shoot everything you have. That's why the best 40k editions have been those that had more strength in close combat as it is the best part in Warhammer, no matter the variety.
Well I think people are looking for summoning actually being beneficial rather than "deep strike, but you have to have a living wizard, pass a casting attempt and miss the opportunity to cast a different spell".
There's a balance point to be found, with one being underwhelming and the other excessive.
Future War Cultist wrote: AoS is the way to go for damage allocation. It's so easy to resolve and prevents any shenanigans.
I don't mind the game going hero hammer either.
To use AoS wound allocation you can't put character in units. In AoS you can give them 5 -7 wounds each and that's it. In 40K they would be deleted from the table.
A simple addition to an AoS style system can fix that.
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
It's just bit unfortunate that the Warhammer game engine isn't very good if the game is mainly shooting. The igougo mechanic makes the game bit too easily into a competition who rolls most dice. The same problem is in AoS and in the old Whfb. Shooting is/was very powerful in those games and at the same time very non-interactive. Whereas in games like Bolt action /Gates of antares, Epic, Dropzone commander and Infinity it has been balanced with reaction mechanisms and alternating action, so that you cannot freely shoot everything you have. That's why the best 40k editions have been those that had more strength in close combat as it is the best part in Warhammer, no matter the variety.
You should go play those games instead?
That's what I have done for the past edition, but wishing there would still be something for me in the 41st millenium as well.
thenewgozoku wrote: They needed a character (Guiliman) to have a confrontation with the main antagonist (abaddon). The lords of Terra being corrupted and relativly unimportant didn't work out for that.
Still sucks. And they didn't need said character to rule the Imperium, just champion for it.
Spoletta wrote: Shooting is less deadly due to the removal of AP. Rend is a more deadly mechanic only on 3+ and 2+ profiles. Same with mortal wounds, they punish high armor profiles.
Little question, what was Rending? Learning the rules in spanish (my mother language) has its downsides when it comes to talking with the english community...
Spoletta wrote: Shooting is less deadly due to the removal of AP. Rend is a more deadly mechanic only on 3+ and 2+ profiles. Same with mortal wounds, they punish high armor profiles.
Little question, what was Rending? Learning the rules in spanish (my mother language) has its downsides when it comes to talking with the english community...
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
Part of 40ks setting is that they use close combat to resolve war just as much as shooting. I suggest reading up on that :p This isn't flames of war.
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
I don't want to play a game purely revolving around mele combat I want to stampede across the board loosing hordes of men before finally ripping the enemy apart some time I make it some times I don't, right now I never make it.
cc is coming back with a vengeance prepare for it.
Have you ever played 40k? Read the fluff? Because it sounds like you haven't.
Shooting and assault should try to be as equal as possible. And since shooting has an inherent advantage over assault, assault needs a boost. Even if the two are largely the same in actual damage inflicting power, assault should have more serious consequences. Shooting should pick a few guys off and at best pin you. Assault should rout the squad completely. Deleting entire units via shooting should be reserved for the most powerful of artillery or absolute masses of substained regular firepower.
So... I guess I need to pop up to the loft and open the box of stored rules and codices and take a photo of me with my original Rogue Trader rules. Sorry I don't own 2nd edition, I was too busy with real life at the time. My copy of third edition was so badly worn and falling to bits, it got thrown out once 4th edition came out and I moved house. The rest are there, bar a few old codices that have been carbooted over the years.
Yes, I get the setting and the fluff. It doesn't mean I want a return to the days when I set my figures up. My opponent sets his Blood Angels up and somehow manages to charge across the table first and second turn and wipe me after I had one round of shooting.
However, I do agree that close combat needs to be better. At the school club I ran, even the kids got bored with close combat going on forever.
"I need a 3 to hit and 4's to wound you, you need a 4 to hit and 3's to wound me".
(following either a draw, a death or 2 and a saved leadership)
"Same again next round"
"Yeah... till the game ends..."
"Yawn".
Bolt Action had a far better way of sorting close combat. I know 40k can't use quite the same way as BA is "same size humans" vs "same size humans" and 40k isn't. But that was a way better way of endiung close combat in a turn without the hassle of locked in combat till the game ended in a massive yawnfest.
Also, as others have pointed out, weapons like Scatter Lasers aren't going to do well against new vehicles because it takes crap loads more shots than it used to for them to kill something like a Dreadnought
That'll be counteracted somewhat by more weapons being able to hurt them. Unless there's a change to the Wound chart, Dreadnoughts can now be killed from the front by bolters.
Have you ever played 40k? Read the fluff? Because it sounds like you haven't.
Shooting and assault should try to be as equal as possible. And since shooting has an inherent advantage over assault, assault needs a boost. Even if the two are largely the same in actual damage inflicting power, assault should have more serious consequences. Shooting should pick a few guys off and at best pin you. Assault should rout the squad completely. Deleting entire units via shooting should be reserved for the most powerful of artillery or absolute masses of substained regular firepower.
So... I guess I need to pop up to the loft and open the box of stored rules and codices and take a photo of me with my original Rogue Trader rules. Sorry I don't own 2nd edition, I was too busy with real life at the time. My copy of third edition was so badly worn and falling to bits, it got thrown out once 4th edition came out and I moved house. The rest are there, bar a few old codices that have been carbooted over the years.
Yes, I get the setting and the fluff. It doesn't mean I want a return to the days when I set my figures up. My opponent sets his Blood Angels up and somehow manages to charge across the table first and second turn and wipe me after I had one round of shooting.
However, I do agree that close combat needs to be better. At the school club I ran, even the kids got bored with close combat going on forever.
"I need a 3 to hit and 4's to wound you, you need a 4 to hit and 3's to wound me".
(following either a draw, a death or 2 and a saved leadership)
"Same again next round"
"Yeah... till the game ends..."
"Yawn".
Bolt Action had a far better way of sorting close combat. I know 40k can't use quite the same way as BA is "same size humans" vs "same size humans" and 40k isn't. But that was a way better way of endiung close combat in a turn without the hassle of locked in combat till the game ended in a massive yawnfest.
They have succeeded in AoS to make the close combat very interesting and tactical so I can't see that it wouldn't work in 40k as well. The problem just might be to get there
Also, as others have pointed out, weapons like Scatter Lasers aren't going to do well against new vehicles because it takes crap loads more shots than it used to for them to kill something like a Dreadnought
That'll be counteracted somewhat by more weapons being able to hurt them. Unless there's a change to the Wound chart, Dreadnoughts can now be killed from the front by bolters.
It's not like Dreadnoughts were super resilient to begin with or dominating the game.
Is it ideal? No. But I feel that it's at least better than the garbage vehicles are now.
Also, as others have pointed out, weapons like Scatter Lasers aren't going to do well against new vehicles because it takes crap loads more shots than it used to for them to kill something like a Dreadnought
That'll be counteracted somewhat by more weapons being able to hurt them. Unless there's a change to the Wound chart, Dreadnoughts can now be killed from the front by bolters.
It won't be very efficient though. A dread is what, T7 with 8 wounds now and a 3+ save? So that's 3s to hit, 6s to wound and a 3+ save to bypass. In order to inflict 8 unsaved wounds with just bolters, you'll need about 216 shots, according to mathhammer. A lascannon can do that with 18, assuming you roll only 1s on the d6 for damage dealt.
Relying on low chances to kill tough targets is just not reliable. Necron players know this. It may be nice that you can hurt it, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bring a better tool for the job.
And if dreadnoughts get nifty close combat weapons and a fair costing then you'll see a lot more of them.
Assault should be brutal and decisive. The meta has been very much in favour of shooting for a while.
There seem to be a some buffs to lower save armies (Orks, Tyranids), and Killa Kans for instance will benefit from the new vehicle rules.
We will see what happens when points costs get released. If Orks have been rewritten by someone who plays Orks, likes Orks and understands maths then that will be great.
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
What roll value is needed for a S4 weapon to wound a T7 piece?
Answer: We don't know right now.
What reason is there to change the S vs T damage table unless the game is using a new type of dice?
Answer: there isn't one.
Other than y'know, stats no longer being capped at 10?
Until I see something where vehicles still take a wound even if they're just hit by a shot--this is, to me, a much more vehicle friendly edition.
Vehicles are hot garbage right now unless skimmers or superheavies.
Ben2 wrote: And if dreadnoughts get nifty close combat weapons and a fair costing then you'll see a lot more of them.
Assault should be brutal and decisive. The meta has been very much in favour of shooting for a while.
There seem to be a some buffs to lower save armies (Orks, Tyranids), and Killa Kans for instance will benefit from the new vehicle rules.
We will see what happens when points costs get released. If Orks have been rewritten by someone who plays Orks, likes Orks and understands maths then that will be great.
We can only hope that the people that made each armies rule loved the army that they were making and understood it as a fan can.
Spoletta wrote: Shooting is less deadly due to the removal of AP. Rend is a more deadly mechanic only on 3+ and 2+ profiles. Same with mortal wounds, they punish high armor profiles.
Little question, what was Rending? Learning the rules in spanish (my mother language) has its downsides when it comes to talking with the english community...
On To Wound rolls of 6s, the weapon was AP2.
My bad i wasn't referring to that.
In AoS rending is what we now have for AP. Rending -2 means a penaly of 2 on the save roll.
What i meant is that this system based on save penalties is less deadly to saves 4+ or less, compared to the old AP system.
Here is the full math, on the basis that AP 5-6 is -0, AP4 is -1, AP3 is -2, AP2 is -3 and AP1 is -4.
The +x% wounds refers to an AP - weapon.
Old AP:
AP 6 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP 6 vs all other saves: no modifier
AP5 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP5 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP5 vs all other saves: no modifier
AP4 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP4 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP4 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP4 vs all other saves: no modifier
AP3 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP3 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP3 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP3 vs armor 3: +300% wounds
AP3 vs all other saves: no modifier
AP2 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP2 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP2 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP2 vs armor 3: +300% wounds
AP2 vs armor 2: +600% wounds
AP1 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP1 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP1 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP1 vs armor 3: +300% wounds
AP1 vs armor 2: +600% wounds
New AP: (AP 5 and 6=No modifier, AP4= -1, AP3=-2, AP2=-3, AP1=-4)
AP 6 vs armor 6 no modifier
AP 6 vs all other saves: no modifier
AP5 vs armor 6: no modifier
AP5 vs armor 5: no modifier
AP5 vs all other saves: no modifier
AP4 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP4 vs armor 5: +25% wounds
AP4 vs armor 4: +33% wounds
AP4 vs armor 3: +50% wounds
AP4 vs armor 2: +100% wounds
AP3 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP3 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP3 vs armor 4: +66% wounds
AP3 vs armor 3: +100% wounds
AP3 vs armor 2: +200% wounds
AP2 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP2 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP2 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP2 vs armor 3: +250% wounds
AP2 vs armor 2: +400% wounds
AP1 vs armor 6: +20% wounds
AP1 vs armor 5: +50% wounds
AP1 vs armor 4: +100% wounds
AP1 vs armor 3: +300% wounds
AP1 vs armor 2: +500% wounds
Which means that the old system compared to the new one, rates like this: (new wounds/old wounds)
AP 6 vs armor 6: 83%
AP 6 vs all other saves: 100%
AP5 vs armor 6: 83%
AP5 vs armor 5: 66%
AP5 vs all other saves: 100%
AP4 vs armor 6: 100%
AP4 vs armor 5: 83%
AP4 vs armor 4: 66%
AP4 vs armor 3: 150%
AP4 vs armor 2: 200%
AP3 vs armor 6: 100%
AP3 vs armor 5: 100%
AP3 vs armor 4: 83%
AP3 vs armor 3: 66%
AP3 vs armor 2: 300%
AP2 vs armor 6: 100%
AP2 vs armor 5: 100%
AP2 vs armor 4: 100%
AP2 vs armor 3: 83%
AP2 vs armor 2: 66%
AP1 vs armor 6: 100%
AP1 vs armor 5: 100%
AP1 vs armor 4: 100%
AP1 vs armor 3: 100%
AP1 vs armor 2: 83%
You can see that for armor 4,5 and 6 you always suffer less wounds with this system.
Armor 3 takes less wounds against AP 2 and 3, but more from AP 4.
Armor 2 takes more wounds from AP 3 and 4, but less from AP 1 and 2.
In general weapons are less deadly, which is a buff to assault armies which never had problems with taking down the target but with getting there without getting deleted.
Warhammer Community wrote:We take a bit of a break from previewing the new edition’s rules today, to explore one of the galaxy’s war zones.
We saw already, in the galaxy map, that a wound has been torn through the Imperium by the mother of all warp storms. Today we have a look at exactly what this means for one familiar planet – a place you guys have all be fighting over for the last few weeks, and for some, even longer – Armageddon.
Spoiler:
As the rift opened up across the Imperium, Armageddon was lucky enough to not be cut off from Terra, but that is no guarantee of safety.
The world was already a battleground for an Imperium desperate to hold onto a vital manufacturing world, as they fought against the largest Ork Waaagh! in millennia, which is driven by the greenskins’ primal urge to re-take this former heart of their ancestral empire*.
Since the warp rift tore through the heart of the galaxy, Armageddon has found itself directly in the path of The Blood Crusade, a vast legion of Khorne’s Daemons pouring into realspace.
Spoiler:
The world looks set for one of the greatest wars in Imperial history. Greenskin, human and followers of the Blood God – all have unfinished business on the ash wastes of Armageddon, and only time will tell which force will triumph…
Armageddon is just one of the war zones erupting in renewed conflict in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. We’ll have news from a few others as the new edition approach. Exciting times.
Tomorrow, we’ll be back with some more news on new rules as we look at the Shooting phase.
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
What roll value is needed for a S4 weapon to wound a T7 piece?
Answer: We don't know right now.
All the changes we've seen have kept the original rules mostly intact. With the no cap to S and T, the chart is most likely going to stay the same (with the same formula) except 6s will always wound.
I knew it! I knew the whole crowd getting up at arms about the lore and setting shifting would be off the mark a bit. I get not liking NuMarines or Guilliman taking the head of the empire but I had a feeling that all they would be doing is relaunching old campaign settings.
Armageddon, OK sure, Orks and Khorne.... Again!? It's the same crap, let me guess Yarrick will be there against Gazzy and the Black Templars and BA will be out en force.
Not seeing anything ground breaking and lore changing here anyway. It's just the War for Armageddon part 4, where Yarrick is about 300 years old because he refuses to stop chasing Abbedons record for failed attempts at ones goal
Interesting analysis Spoletta - perhaps it balances the fact that marines become 100% more durable in cover than they were before. That is good from an overall "fairness" as to who wins angle, but still bad from a "How the game plays" as far as I'm concerned since marines skulking in cover all the time annoys me. A bolter for example is now 33% less effective vs guard, which has it's merits I suppose, as long as they did a good job mathhammering and playtesting everything to account for it.
Red Corsair wrote: I knew it! I knew the whole crowd getting up at arms about the lore and setting shifting would be off the mark a bit. I get not liking NuMarines or Guilliman taking the head of the empire but I had a feeling that all they would be doing is relaunching old campaign settings.
Armageddon, OK sure, Orks and Khorne.... Again!? It's the same crap, let me guess Yarrick will be there against Gazzy and the Black Templars and BA will be out en force.
Not seeing anything ground breaking and lore changing here anyway. It's just the War for Armageddon part 4, where Yarrick is about 300 years old because he refuses to stop chasing Abbedons record for failed attempts at ones goal
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
What roll value is needed for a S4 weapon to wound a T7 piece?
Answer: We don't know right now.
All the changes we've seen have kept the original rules mostly intact. With the no cap to S and T, the chart is most likely going to stay the same (with the same formula) except 6s will always wound.
So have we seen the special rules for a Dreadnought? For vehicles/MCs in general?
That's the point I'm trying, albeit not as well as I'd like, to get across.
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
They may be functionally more fragile, but the chance for them to be one-shot by the first lascannon that sneezes in their general direction is gone. On top of that, their 'wounds' have almost tripled, going from a 3HP vehicle, to an 8 wound vehicle. And, now, unless they are in cover, the Dread currently has no save, whereas in 8th, they will. The AP of weapons could modify it of course, but a modified save > no save.
Realistically, they're going to be more resilient against the weapons currently used to take them out (HYMP, Scatter lasers, etc.), and mathematically similar in resilience to the weapons that should be used to take them out, currently. And even against the one anti-vehicle weapon we've been shown, the Dread will still get a save against it. A hail-mary save, but a save nontheless. They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it, but they're also not going to be a waste of points that turns into a crater or a piece of terrain on the first turn of the game.
Goodbye broken summoning, hello broken summoning.
Unless, of course, they've learnt their lesson from AoS Matched Play where they nerfed it too hard and made it pointless most of the time. I certainly hope they have.
If it's a literal port of AoS Matched Play summoning then it'll be even worse than it is there... at least in AoS it allows you to 'Deep Strike' certain units in a system that otherwise (aside from a few exceptions - looking at you Stormcast) lacks it.
JimOnMars wrote: The worst part of overwatch imho was killing the front couple of models and vastly stretching the charge distance. Often this caused the charge to fail, and the unit just sits there and dies. Overwatch has killed more of my units this way than cc ever did. Hopefully 8e will fix this.
Overwatch will most surely be removed as an army wide rule and just added to a select few (or not so few) warscrolls - fire warriors for example.
I'd be fine with it if it was limited to a few basic troop units - tac marines, fire warriors, guardsmen. That would give these kind of riflemen units a solid and flavorful advantage without allowing it to the nastier special weapon platforms like stern guard, riptides and flyrants.
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
They may be functionally more fragile, but the chance for them to be one-shot by the first lascannon that sneezes in their general direction is gone. On top of that, their 'wounds' have almost tripled, going from a 3HP vehicle, to an 8 wound vehicle. And, now, unless they are in cover, the Dread currently has no save, whereas in 8th, they will. The AP of weapons could modify it of course, but a modified save > no save.
Realistically, they're going to be more resilient against the weapons currently used to take them out (HYMP, Scatter lasers, etc.), and mathematically similar in resilience to the weapons that should be used to take them out, currently. And even against the one anti-vehicle weapon we've been shown, the Dread will still get a save against it. A hail-mary save, but a save nontheless. They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it, but they're also not going to be a waste of points that turns into a crater or a piece of terrain on the first turn of the game.
Your pro-change argument is "They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it" which makes absolutely no sense because they were NEVER gods of the battlefield.
What you're actually saying is "At BEST they will be something they never actually were and at WORST they will be just as worthless as before". Not exactly a compelling argument.
Dreadnoughts *are* terrible in virtually every edition of 40k unless they have AV13 (even then they are marginally more useful). Making them able to survive a single hit isn't much of a benefit if they still can't do anything useful considering their MAIN benefit was tarpitting units and slowly killing them. With a 6+ to wound from even a guardsmen they won't be able to do that either and then their target will just run away.
Well I think people are looking for summoning actually being beneficial rather than "deep strike, but you have to have a living wizard, pass a casting attempt and miss the opportunity to cast a different spell".
There's a balance point to be found, with one being underwhelming and the other excessive.
Except it means you can summon any tool you want. And some abilities will bring units on without psykers.
The world looks set for one of the greatest wars in Imperial history. Greenskin, human and followers of the Blood God – all have unfinished business on the ash wastes of Armageddon, and only time will tell which force will triumph…
Armageddon is just one of the war zones erupting in renewed conflict in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. We’ll have news from a few others as the new edition approach. Exciting times.
The Warzone Armageddon article is interesting. Such a Warzone release will hopefully come with some new Ork kits (in addition to a new buggy). Would an Angron model fit in there too?
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this.
So, it's the 41st millenium... Troops carry weapons that can fire long range and either explode, poison or vapourise the enemy. Why would you run over to them to punch them or hit them with a chainsaw?
Surely the main part of the game is shooting. If you want hand to hand, surely playing a historical game would make more sense.
Even in modern battles and wars like WW2 and Vietnam, hand to hand combat was still common, especially when you're trying to shift dug in infantry in urban areas.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.
My preference would be 60/40 in favour of shooting, although I appreciate that there are Ork and Tyranid armies to consider.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.
I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.
Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.
I would prefer if shooting would mainly be for pinning troops and close range assault, which would include close range shootong, would be the way to actually remove the enemy. It worls well in some games and mimics the "real war" bit better than lines of guys shooting/charging each other. That said, I'm eager to see how they handle pinning in 8th.
The world looks set for one of the greatest wars in Imperial history. Greenskin, human and followers of the Blood God – all have unfinished business on the ash wastes of Armageddon, and only time will tell which force will triumph…
Armageddon is just one of the war zones erupting in renewed conflict in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. We’ll have news from a few others as the new edition approach. Exciting times.
The Warzone Armageddon article is interesting. Such a Warzone release will hopefully come with some new Ork kits (in addition to a new buggy). Would an Angron model fit in their too?
New ork kits would be amazing but GW have clearly stated that focus will be on different kinds of space marines.
People can say what they want about "New GW", but this is just beautiful, both in its implication and execution.
Good riddance to summoned units, balancing a game well is simply impossible when one army on the table can just completely toss aside the point limit.
Spoletta wrote: Keeping in line with AoS rules being imported in 40K, we can foresee the following buffs for assault (some we already know, some are speculation):
- Shooting is less deadly due to the removal of AP. Rend is a more deadly mechanic only on 3+ and 2+ profiles. Same with mortal wounds, they punish high armor profiles.
- *Speculation* When removing models, the controlling player removes a model of his choice.
- *Speculation* Overwatch is no longer a mechanic of the game, but only a special rule of some models.
- No more templates, you can optimize your formations.
- Assault from transports (was this confirmed?)
- More reliable deepstriking *speculation* with assault from deep strike, but requiring a 9" on the charge most of the time.
- Increased speed on some dedicated melee units, like hormagaunts.
- Chargers strike first. Everything else follows an I GO You GO order.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, remember that the meta will shift A LOT due to the new vehicle and mostrous creatures profiles.
Forget High ROF mid strenght weapons as the way to go, you will never stop a dreadnaught or a carnifex with those (32 Str7 AP -1, like HYMP, hits to stop a dreadnaught compared to the 9 required now). High strenght low ROF weapons will be back in the game, giving a lot more breath to non elite assault units.
Future War Cultist wrote: Shooting always had an inherent advantage over assault due to the ranges involved. They needed to address this. And making it so that shooting is geneally a 'light attack' and assault is more hard hitting is a good way to go. You should be rewarded for making it into assault.
Caederes wrote: Striking first if you charge becomes amazing if you don't have to take casualties from the front anymore. Even with the whole retreat mechanic the fact that you still make at least one unit worthless for a full turn and you get to take full advantage of your assault units that (in the case of Orks especially) classically would get cut down before they could strike is a good trade I feel. People forget that shooting the unit that just got put in the open from a friendly retreat only works if you have the units to shoot them - the game seems to be about making assault as a whole better, deincentivizing death-stars and making numerous assault units more worthwhile. Not having to take casualties from the front (I assume this will be the case) will make charging so much easier, and once you get there, even units like Hormagaunts with sufficient numbers should still tear through most other Troop units with little difficulty. Context is everything.
Consider also that the AP system is gone; Bolters no longer ignore 5+ armour saves....which is what most light assault units in the game like Orks, Hormagaunts, Acolyte Hybrids, etc have. People really need to think deeply about what this means for horde armies now.
Agreed on all of those. Going from what we have seen so far and what we can infer from AoS (considering the rule changes have been based to 80% on AoS stuff makes it a relatively safe bet) Assault and particularly assault focused races/armies are coming back with a vengeance. Even as someone who is going to start Tau with the new Edition I think that close combat has to be (reasonably) stronger than shooting overall to make the game balanced and fun (for more than one player at the table, that is). Shooting armies always have the benefit of being able to inflict damage much sooner, in a more focused fashion and hurt and punish assault units until the very turn and phase they finally get to charge. You will also suffer from less return damage and if you do from already damaged/crippled units. You can extend the amount of turns you get to shoot those units coming for you if you take out transports etc. If close combat isn't deadlier then shooting armies will always dominate as can be seen with the current edition, and that makes several armies instantly much weaker than the rest and elevates a few to the absolute top (cough, Eldar and Tau right now).
Which is a bloody shame considering how important close combat is for 40k both in the game system, the universe and the fluff.
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
Also, as others have pointed out, weapons like Scatter Lasers aren't going to do well against new vehicles because it takes crap loads more shots than it used to for them to kill something like a Dreadnought
That'll be counteracted somewhat by more weapons being able to hurt them. Unless there's a change to the Wound chart, Dreadnoughts can now be killed from the front by bolters.
It won't be very efficient though.
A dread is what, T7 with 8 wounds now and a 3+ save?
So that's 3s to hit, 6s to wound and a 3+ save to bypass.
In order to inflict 8 unsaved wounds with just bolters, you'll need about 216 shots, according to mathhammer.
A lascannon can do that with 18, assuming you roll only 1s on the d6 for damage dealt.
Relying on low chances to kill tough targets is just not reliable. Necron players know this. It may be nice that you can hurt it, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bring a better tool for the job.
Absolutely this. A negligible vulnerability to small arms like Bolters and Lasguns is nothing compared to the following
- Complete removal of instant kills through explosion/destroyed results from the vehicle damage table. Nothing will instantly destroy a full HP anymore as far as we know right now, massively increasing their viability compared to monstrous creatures. Also no more permanent immobilization that makes any close range oriented vehicle almost as useless as being destroyed if it happens to them in the deployment zone. Sure, the chance of getting instantly blown up by e.g. a lascannon wasn't that high, but if you factor in both the chance of destruction and immobilization... well, then you now why barely anyone bothered
with AV12/13 short range vehicles unless they had extremely favorable special rules. Meanwhile Monstrous Creatures/high toughness single models didn't give a feth, lost a hitpoint and moved/slaughtered on.
And that's before mentioning that reduced stats is indefinitely preferable to not being able to shoot/assault/assault at all because of being shaken or stunned.
- In the case of Dreadnoughts and other AV12 -> T7 vehicles they get more than 50% as resistant as they are now, assuming weapon profiles for S6 and S7 weapons remain largely the same. Assuming similar point costs as in this Edition, those cheap mass spam lower strength AT weapons were that was absolutely murdering anything below AV14, even by simply creating an overload of glancing hits (absolutely deadly with the structure point system that was introduced after the 5th edition). Just think about how effective those will be when a Dread gets +1 on its armour save for being in cover... Meanwhile, assuming point costs remain similar to now, a Lascannon and equivalents are an expensive investment and now needed to efficiently deal with the new toughness+save vehicles. Units that are able to "boat" them (e.g. Devastators) are often fragile and can be focused down. They are hardly spammable without serious drawbacks compared to those high volume S6/S7 weapons that can also efficiently kill infantry when no wortwhile vehicle target is around.
- No more getting absolutely ripped to shreds by Monstrous creatures. This made close combat dreads pointless and unreliable unless used for tarpitting and killing infantry and few selected other unit types. Considering how likely it was to face monstrous creatures in an all-comers scenario like a tournament, there was little reason to field them unless they were essentially undercosted and had high potential like Murderfang. Now a close combat Dread will very likely be able to duke it out with many monstrous creatures and inflict serious damage with it's many attacks and DCCWs, just as they should have been able to to begin with.
From what I can see there is no reason to assume why Dreads and vehicles in general are now worse off than before (which to be fair is a rather low bar right now).
This sucks. Having a guy in charge of the Imperium sucks big time already. Having this guy be the big burly space marine++ that doesn't even fit right in the grimdark due to the horus heresy thing about them being enlightened atheist sucks even more.
They needed a character (Guiliman) to have a confrontation with the main antagonist (abaddon). The lords of Terra being corrupted and relativly unimportant didn't work out for that.
Not to mention it also gives the writers both the precedent to give the traitor primarchs a really active role now that they have opponents on their level rather than being damned to eternally sulk in the background and barely have any consequential appearances, while also giving GW the chance to bring more loyalist Primarchs back into the action (particularly Vulcan and Russ, particularly the latter would be pretty epic and is kinda needed as well, just imagine the now badly battered Wolves with their uncertain future getting their Primarch back and making one hell of a comeback). They can still freeze the story into another perpetual stalemate again later, until the next big storyline progression in a few years. Blowing up Cadia was necessary as well, it was literally the storytelling equivalent of winning by spawn-camping in a Multiplayer shooter which gets pretty boring after almost two decades.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.
I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.
Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.
Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.
I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.
Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.
Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.
Nah it doesn't happen actually, in all my games of AoS it happened only once, and even there we still had 2 skirmishes going on outside the grand melee. AoS has an extremely dynamic play, even if the shooting is actually a bit too strong, so i think that importing the AoS rules into 40k will make it a lot of good.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.
I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.
Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.
Armour that can deflect a tank round is with us in 2017, never mind 40,000AD
The fluff also says that teleporting terminators suffer mishaps, but that seems to have gone in 8th.
I've nothing against close combat, but the vast majority of casualties in combat stem from artillery fire. Yes, it's only a game, but I would like 40K to be tilted towards shooting, whilst still finding a role for CC.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.
I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.
Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.
Armour that can deflect a tank round is with us in 2017, never mind 40,000AD
The fluff also says that teleporting terminators suffer mishaps, but that seems to have gone in 8th.
I've nothing against close combat, but the vast majority of casualties in combat stem from artillery fire. Yes, it's only a game, but I would like 40K to be tilted towards shooting, whilst still finding a role for CC.
got a reference about termies and deep strike no longer suffering mishap? I've been watching the rumors pretty closely and haven't seen that one yet
Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.
the changes proposed are meant to give us that 50-50 you're talking about; As it stands its about 80-20 in favor of shooting.
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
They may be functionally more fragile, but the chance for them to be one-shot by the first lascannon that sneezes in their general direction is gone. On top of that, their 'wounds' have almost tripled, going from a 3HP vehicle, to an 8 wound vehicle. And, now, unless they are in cover, the Dread currently has no save, whereas in 8th, they will. The AP of weapons could modify it of course, but a modified save > no save.
Realistically, they're going to be more resilient against the weapons currently used to take them out (HYMP, Scatter lasers, etc.), and mathematically similar in resilience to the weapons that should be used to take them out, currently. And even against the one anti-vehicle weapon we've been shown, the Dread will still get a save against it. A hail-mary save, but a save nontheless. They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it, but they're also not going to be a waste of points that turns into a crater or a piece of terrain on the first turn of the game.
Your pro-change argument is "They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it" which makes absolutely no sense because they were NEVER gods of the battlefield.
What you're actually saying is "At BEST they will be something they never actually were and at WORST they will be just as worthless as before". Not exactly a compelling argument.
Dreadnoughts *are* terrible in virtually every edition of 40k unless they have AV13 (even then they are marginally more useful). Making them able to survive a single hit isn't much of a benefit if they still can't do anything useful considering their MAIN benefit was tarpitting units and slowly killing them. With a 6+ to wound from even a guardsmen they won't be able to do that either and then their target will just run away.
Then why is everyone suddenly bemoaning the fact that Dreadnoughts aren't resilient -now-? If they've never been good, this changes nothing.
Seriously, new rules leaked that show how vehicles will be better off now than they were since the AV mechanic was introduced, and people started loosing their minds because "My Landraider can now be killed by Lasguns!" "My Dreadnought can now be killed by Boltguns!" Meanwhile, conveniently forgetting the fact that (so far as has been confirmed), these vehicles will no longer be instantly rendered useless by a first turn shooting phase. That, right there, is a compelling argument that they are significantly better off than they are now. Factor in the armor save they now have access to, and you're looking at a significant boost in their effectiveness against the things that now are able to hurt them.
All across this forum, you see people complaining that Bolters are terrible. That Lasguns are a joke. Now suddenly they're going to be mowing down Dreadnoughts and Landraiders on tables around the world? How are weapons that are currently derided as being bad at killing infantry, suddenly going to become a vehicles biggest threat?
I don't think Roboute is a leader of the entire Imperium, at least not de jure. Lord Commander of the Imperium is 'just' one of the High Lords and the supreme commander of the armed forces.
The guy is a total hypocrite of course "No single individual should have the power Horus had... except me." I hope the High Lords have him assassinated.
Agreed. It'll be rediculously inefficient in points (one way or another) to kill anything bigger than a marine with a lasgun or boltgun. A lascannon will bring a big enough of a punch to ignore the toughness and an AP that will cut that armor save down pretty harshly. Of course this is just guessing, like everyone else claiming the flamer will be the most OP thing in this addition or the most worthless upgrade ever. No one will know until it comes out, but I get the feeling that this will very much be a bring the right tool for the right job kind of thing and it will reward you for not trying to gun down a dreadnought with a massive volley of lasguns, and trying to take it down with actual ordinance.
If Dreads cost 60pts each and have easy access to deepstrike or another low risk method of getting where they need. Or cost 80pts with 2 TL Lascannon and can camp in cover for a 1+ save, all of the arguments start to melt away.
Making judgements on partial information is always going to be a bit of a fools errand.
Sorry if this has been asked or covered before (its a huge thread), but has there been any word on how well this edition is likely to scale down?
I prefer the company-level size of 2e and early 3e to the 28mm Epic behemoth 40K slowly became. Some of the changes I've seen so far have drawn my interest, but supporting much smaller scale games would go a long way toward actually bringing me back.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.
I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.
Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.
Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.
As opposed to, say, Kings of War where you push your models to the middle and roll dice.
Middle of the table complaints come up on just about every war game out there.
When both sides start on opposite sides of the table and if most/darn near every mission is 'annihilate' the other army, a fight in the middle is what you'll see more often than not.
Just watch some battle reports on youtube for just about any war game and you're going to see the bulk of fighting end up in the middle.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.
I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.
Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.
Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.
As opposed to, say, Kings of War where you push your models to the middle and roll dice.
Middle of the table complaints come up on just about every war game out there.
When both sides start on opposite sides of the table and if most/darn near every mission is 'annihilate' the other army, a fight in the middle is what you'll see more often than not.
Just watch some battle reports on youtube for just about any war game and you're going to see the bulk of fighting end up in the middle.
As a keen learner of military history, I can tell you that a lot of battles in real life were fights up the middle of a field, so I don't know why miniature war-games get criticised for this.
Actually, the bad rep of AoS for the "Is just a giant meele in the middle" is undeserved by a number of reasons:
-The most OP armies right now are all 100% shooting based and Mortal Wounds spam. The only meele one is the Blodletter-bomb that personally I count it as shooting, because they are shooting you in the face a bomb of 30 blodletters
-Every wargame of mass battles without objetives is a giant battle in the middle. Kings of War is. WHFB was, etc, etc... thats why you use battle plans that have other objetives so you have a better gaming experience. And AoS has a very big number of different battle plans just to avoid a big meele in the middle of the map. If people still want to play that way, well, ok, but saying that is how the most of the battles play is just ignoring the factual evidence.
As a keen learner of military history, I can tell you that a lot of battles in real life were fights up the middle of a field, so I don't know why miniature war-games get criticised for this.
KoW? WHFB? AoS? Medieval and other historical?
Of course they're middle of the field close combat battles. Most of the weapons were pointy, sharp or bludgeoning weapons that involve hitting the opponent with at close range.
I'm fairly sure most battles since guns were common weren't/aren't quite the same.
My point was that shooting should have just as much (or more) relevance in the 41st millenium if we're spending time painting models with guns.
As a keen learner of military history, I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong.
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
Except they're NOT more fragile. You can't one-shot them easily anymore, you can't stun-lock them, you can't Immobilize them, you can't destroy their weapons, etc. 8 Wounds at Toughness 7 is functionally more durable in the old system than 3 Hull Points at AV12/12/10 even if you account for all the special weapon types like Poison and Haywire. Keep in mind also that the Toughness 7 model has a 3+ armour save, whereas the AV12 model had to try and find cover to get any kind of (weak) save. Being able to hurt big models with Boltguns and Lasguns doesn't make them more fragile, it just gives basic units the means to contribute against those durable targets that they were previously useless against.
I have no idea how anyone could think a Toughness 7 model with 8 Wounds and a 3+ save is less durable than an AV 12/12/10 vehicle with 3 Hull Points that is susceptible to the vehicle damage chart, especially when the Rend system means a Dreadnought will likely laugh off a lot of the old AP3 weapons. Off the top of my head and keeping in mind I'm not the best at maths, your basic Space Marine hits on a 3+ and - assuming Strength 4 will need a 6+ to wound Toughness 7 - that means you need roughly 9 shots just to deal 1 Wound to a Dreadnought, or 27 shots to deal 3 Wounds before saves - but only 1 unsaved Wound - to a Dreadnought. Considering a 10 man Tactical Squad can at most put out 20 shots a turn at the moment at 12" range in which case they are already in charge range of said Dreadnought....yeah, I don't see how Dreadnoughts can be considered more fragile based on what we've seen so far.
As a keen learner of military history, I can tell you that a lot of battles in real life were fights up the middle of a field, so I don't know why miniature war-games get criticised for this.
KoW? WHFB? AoS? Medieval and other historical?
Of course they're middle of the field close combat battles. Most of the weapons were pointy, sharp or bludgeoning weapons that involve hitting the opponent with at close range.
I'm fairly sure most battles since guns were common weren't/aren't quite the same.
My point was that shooting should have just as much (or more) relevance in the 41st millenium if we're spending time painting models with guns.
As a keen learner of military history, I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong.
I'm on your side on this one with regard to shooting in 40k.
Long range artillery, telescopic sights, orbital bombardments etc etc
Yes, I believe the main focus of 40k should be the shooting, but always leaving a place for hand to hand combat.
Has no one compaining about bolt guns/Lasguns hurting tanks ever actually tried killing mc's with them? I play 30k and even with WotL to double my shots you are lucky to do a single wound. Especially if we are talking about a mc with a +2 save. If it was so easy to kill units like this with bolt and Las guns then why do most people consider mc's better then tanks?
Speaking from experience, trying to kill something like a Trygon with just Bolters doesn't work. A Dreadnought has 2 more wounds than a Trygon currently does (I expect the 8th Edition version of a Trygon to have 12+). Again, I'm not seeing how anyone can think a Dreadnought is less durable than it was before.
Chaos Daemons are also primarily a melee army, just one that - thanks to crappy assault rules in 7th Edition - tends to stick to psyker heavy lists currently.
Yeah, I also can't see how the new vehicle rules would make tanks morfragile Provided that the "To Wound" chart stays the same all vehicles benefit from the new system - try out the scrolls here http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.bg/ and see for yourself. Honestly, 40k plays well under AoS (proto 40k) rules. My main gripe with the new rules are that they're not a completely new and innovative system (I wanted 40k to be a special snowflake) instead being just a more or less predictable upgrade of AoS. Trust me (or don't, whatever ) it plays well enough now and will probably play even better with the new rules... it just won't be a truly great and outstanding gaming system and that's a shame.
Your pro-change argument is "They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it" which makes absolutely no sense because they were NEVER gods of the battlefield.
...
Actually they were amazing in 2nd, and pretty solid in 4th.
So far the info makes them look pretty good for 8th.
2nd edition isn't current 40k (which started in 3rd Ed) and no they weren't good in 4th. There hasn't been an instance where n av12 dreadnought​ has been useful except for grey knights in 5th.
You cannot compare rogue trader to anything else, as it was more like a board game (fluff doesn't match either)
2nd Ed can only be compared to necromunda.
3rd-7th is modern 40k and can be compared.
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
They may be functionally more fragile, but the chance for them to be one-shot by the first lascannon that sneezes in their general direction is gone. On top of that, their 'wounds' have almost tripled, going from a 3HP vehicle, to an 8 wound vehicle. And, now, unless they are in cover, the Dread currently has no save, whereas in 8th, they will. The AP of weapons could modify it of course, but a modified save > no save.
Realistically, they're going to be more resilient against the weapons currently used to take them out (HYMP, Scatter lasers, etc.), and mathematically similar in resilience to the weapons that should be used to take them out, currently. And even against the one anti-vehicle weapon we've been shown, the Dread will still get a save against it. A hail-mary save, but a save nontheless. They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it, but they're also not going to be a waste of points that turns into a crater or a piece of terrain on the first turn of the game.
Your pro-change argument is "They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it" which makes absolutely no sense because they were NEVER gods of the battlefield.
What you're actually saying is "At BEST they will be something they never actually were and at WORST they will be just as worthless as before". Not exactly a compelling argument.
Dreadnoughts *are* terrible in virtually every edition of 40k unless they have AV13 (even then they are marginally more useful). Making them able to survive a single hit isn't much of a benefit if they still can't do anything useful considering their MAIN benefit was tarpitting units and slowly killing them. With a 6+ to wound from even a guardsmen they won't be able to do that either and then their target will just run away.
Then why is everyone suddenly bemoaning the fact that Dreadnoughts aren't resilient -now-? If they've never been good, this changes nothing.
Seriously, new rules leaked that show how vehicles will be better off now than they were since the AV mechanic was introduced, and people started loosing their minds because "My Landraider can now be killed by Lasguns!" "My Dreadnought can now be killed by Boltguns!" Meanwhile, conveniently forgetting the fact that (so far as has been confirmed), these vehicles will no longer be instantly rendered useless by a first turn shooting phase. That, right there, is a compelling argument that they are significantly better off than they are now. Factor in the armor save they now have access to, and you're looking at a significant boost in their effectiveness against the things that now are able to hurt them.
All across this forum, you see people complaining that Bolters are terrible. That Lasguns are a joke. Now suddenly they're going to be mowing down Dreadnoughts and Landraiders on tables around the world? How are weapons that are currently derided as being bad at killing infantry, suddenly going to become a vehicles biggest threat?
I actually get a chuckle at people pissing and moaning dreads being killed by bolters since not too long ago in a RTT a guy charged his las canon dread into my 5 man noise marines rhino, wrecked it, I got out 3" then in my turn moved 6" to it's rear and tossed a krack grenade and double tapped my bolters into it stripping all three hull points. We both laughed at how stupid it was that he traded a dreadnought for a rhino essentially. With the new leaks I may be able to shoot it and harm it from the front but at least he will have a 3+ save and almost triple the wounds/HP.
Killing vehicles with small arms fire happens in almost every game I play, maybe my group likes mobility more then most, but it isn't an uncommon event now. I mean look at all the bullet traps and exposed hydraulics and fiber bundles and optics on EVERY model in 40k, pretty sure those are vulnerable spots.
And to anyone claiming "But mah fotey kay is 40,000 years in the future!" I say so? The dark ages were a massive step back from the antiquity era, where art, governments and cultures in general all regressed back to nearly zero, notice this is a setting called the dark age? I mean Jesus, they don't even know how to make new tanks and armor, they are praying to their machines. After 10,000 years of being tech/mechanical morons I would guess that same tank would have newer vulnerabilities
Lockark wrote: Has no one compaining about bolt guns/Lasguns hurting tanks ever actually tried killing mc's with them? I play 30k and even with WotL to double my shots you are lucky to do a single wound. Especially if we are talking about a mc with a +2 save. If it was so easy to kill units like this with bolt and Las guns then why do most people consider mc's better then tanks?
THANK you.
Plus hitting any of those vehicles on the rear armor is significantly less durable. That's am equivalent of maybe 3 wounds with no save.
insaniak wrote: I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.
Except they're NOT more fragile. You can't one-shot them easily anymore, you can't stun-lock them, you can't Immobilize them, you can't destroy their weapons, etc. 8 Wounds at Toughness 7 is functionally more durable in the old system than 3 Hull Points at AV12/12/10 even if you account for all the special weapon types like Poison and Haywire. Keep in mind also that the Toughness 7 model has a 3+ armour save, whereas the AV12 model had to try and find cover to get any kind of (weak) save. Being able to hurt big models with Boltguns and Lasguns doesn't make them more fragile, it just gives basic units the means to contribute against those durable targets that they were previously useless against.
I have no idea how anyone could think a Toughness 7 model with 8 Wounds and a 3+ save is less durable than an AV 12/12/10 vehicle with 3 Hull Points that is susceptible to the vehicle damage chart, especially when the Rend system means a Dreadnought will likely laugh off a lot of the old AP3 weapons. Off the top of my head and keeping in mind I'm not the best at maths, your basic Space Marine hits on a 3+ and - assuming Strength 4 will need a 6+ to wound Toughness 7 - that means you need roughly 9 shots just to deal 1 Wound to a Dreadnought, or 27 shots to deal 3 Wounds before saves - but only 1 unsaved Wound - to a Dreadnought. Considering a 10 man Tactical Squad can at most put out 20 shots a turn at the moment at 12" range in which case they are already in charge range of said Dreadnought....yeah, I don't see how Dreadnoughts can be considered more fragile based on what we've seen so far.
I run with talos with my DE regularly and I catch people off guard and beat face with them. They are 3W T7 and have a 3+ save and a 5+ FNP, a dread with 8W with T7 3+ save is better at survival then a talos. I'd encourage anyone thinking that profile sucks in in the CURRENT edition to field some with the leaked changes and come back. I am guessing they will have a change of heart and join the wait and see the big picture crowd.
But I don't disagree with the spirit of your point.
Fair enough, I am sure it's more nuanced then I am giving credit, but to the same degree they continue to find enigma machines and Baghdad batteries also demonstrating further innovation then we give ancient societies credit as well.
I would like to put out some arguments on vehicle resiliency. I will take the dreadnought as an example because we have his statline obviously.
Let's assume that scatter laser, a typical medium strength spammable weapon, a favourite in 7th ed will get its stats (S:6 AP:6 heavy 4) converted to this :
S:6 Rend 0 heavy 4.
probability to strip a HP in 7th ed : 2/3 * 1/6 = 1/9 per shot which leads to an expected value of 3/(1/9) = 27 shots ; or 6.75 volleys at BS:4 for vehicle destruction.
probability to strip a HP in 8th ed : 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 = 2/27 per shot wich leads to an expected value of 8/(2/27) = 108 shots ; or 27 volleys at BS 3+ for vehicle destruction.
300 % more hits needed, the survivability is massively improved.
But...
Let's take a look as lascannon now, @ BS 4.
It is difficult to calculate the expected value of hits to destroy a dreadnought in 7th edition because of the duality of stripping HP one by one and risk of sudden explosion.
To avoid the pain of building an obnoxious spread sheet let's assume this approximation : @ AP2 on a on the damage table you count 3 HP instead of 1.
probability of removing 3 HP via penetrating hits : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 = 1/18
probability of removing 1 HP : 2/3 * 1/6 (glancing hits) + 2/3 * 1/2 * 5/6 (non explosive penetrating hits) = 7/18
expected value of HP per shot : 3*1/18 + 7/18 = 10/18 ; so to remove 3 you will need 3 / (10/18) = 5.40 lascannon shots approximately.
Now in 8th edition, it's simpler.
Each lascannon shot fired @ BS 3+ has 2/3 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 50/108 probability of applying damage. Each damage has a mean value of 3.5 HP removed.
So to remove all 8 HP of the dreadnought you need : 8 / (3.5 * 50/108) = 4.94 lascannon shots approximately.
As you can see, in this case, because of the introduction of multiple damage and lowering of T value of the dreadnought, his survivability is somewhat lowered in 8th edition.
Only when faced with dedicated anti tank weapons, which is exactly how it should be. And by your own maths the difference is only slight. 0.46 is OK by me.
I would like to put out some arguments on vehicle resiliency. I will take the dreadnought as an example because we have his statline obviously.
Let's assume that scatter laser, a typical medium strength spammable weapon, a favourite in 7th ed will get its stats (S:6 AP:6 heavy 4) converted to this :
S:6 Rend 0 heavy 4.
probability to strip a HP in 7th ed : 1/6 which leads to an expected value of 3/(1/6) = 18 hits ; or 6.75 volleys at BS:4 for vehicle destruction.
probability to strip a HP in 8th ed : 1/9 wich leads to an expected value of 8/(1/9) = 72 hits ; or 27 volleys at BS 3+ for vehicle destruction.
300% more hits needed, the survivability is massively improved.
But...
Let's take a look as lascannon now, @ BS 4.
It is difficult to calculate the expected value of hits to destroy a dreadnought in 7th edition because of the duality of stripping HP one by one and risk of sudden explosion.
To avoid the pain of building an obnoxious spread sheet let's assume this approximation : @ AP2 on a on the damage table you count 3 HP instead of 1.
probability of removing 3 HP via penetrating hits : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 = 1/18
probability of removing 1 HP : 2/3 * 1/6 (glancing hits) + 2/3 * 1/2 * 5/6 (non explosive penetrating hits) = 7/18
expected value of HP per shot : 3*1/18 + 7/18 = 10/18 ; so to remove 3 you will need 3 / (10/18) = 5.40 lascannon shots approximately.
Now in 8th edition, it's simpler.
Each lascannon shot fired @ BS 3+ has 2/3 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 50/108 probability of applying damage. Each damage has a mean value of 3.5 HP removed.
So to remove all 8 HP of the dreadnought you need : 8 / (3.5 * 50/108) = 4.94 lascannon shots approximately.
As you can see, in this case, because of the introduction of multiple damage and lowering of T value of the dreadnought, his survivability is somewhat lowered in 8th edition.
I don't know about everyone else, but to me this seems perfect. The dread is more resiliant to mid-strength weapons, but a tank busting Lascannon is now fit for purpose. You no longer have a one-weapon-fits-all situation - you need the right tool for the job. I like this
Are we already mathhammering before the new edition comes out? What ever happened for playing for fun and not finding the ultamite build? Right now before it even started the edition is broken because people are not looking for what is fun, but what can be exploited.
CoreCommander wrote:Trust me (or don't, whatever ) it plays well enough now and will probably play even better with the new rules... it just won't be a truly great and outstanding gaming system and that's a shame.
I agree. I would have loved to see an outstanding game, but then after the last 20 or so years of third edition, anything is better than keep upgrading (or downgrading) third edition. Nice to see a clear cut change and an actual new edition instead of "upgrades".
That said, I didn't think I could be excited especially when it seems to be molded after Age of Sigmar, but I am looking forward to it. Past experience shows me not to get excited but I am looking forward to it where before I thought there would be no hope for a new edition and would be crap old third edition. So I am liking the changes I see. I just hope it plays well and people can actually have fun instead of trying to win with plastic toy soldiers.
I want to play like a kid and have fun not be a make believe sports jock. Hopefully this new edition caters to both sides and people can have fun or be competitive if they so choose so.
Corrected some minor mistakes in first calculation.
Yes I'm perfectly in line with the changes, this seems good to rebalance the game.
But I wanted to point out that the idea that vehicles will be tougher against all threats is not true.
yellowfever wrote: I'm hoping for two things. Stop letting armies get free units. I like my space wolf dreads to be at least a little threat.
The dreadnought have 8 wounds. Isn't that twice the wounds of a carnifex? That's pretty durable.
Expect said carnifex to have close to 10 wounds in this edition.
STR 6-7 weapons will be there to murder heavy infantry and to support in tank/MC hunting. They will no longer be the main stay of fire power.
Which leads to another point; it might now be feasible to use mixed weapons in squads. Especially if they use the targeting system of AoS too. No longer will you be able to just spam one type of weapon that's good at killing everything. Now you'll need to mix things up. And everyone in the same squad can select their own ideal target. Just like in real life. And that would be awesome.
I would like to put out some arguments on vehicle resiliency. I will take the dreadnought as an example because we have his statline obviously.
Let's assume that scatter laser, a typical medium strength spammable weapon, a favourite in 7th ed will get its stats (S:6 AP:6 heavy 4) converted to this :
S:6 Rend 0 heavy 4.
probability to strip a HP in 7th ed : 1/6 which leads to an expected value of 3/(1/6) = 18 hits ; or 6.75 volleys at BS:4 for vehicle destruction.
probability to strip a HP in 8th ed : 1/9 wich leads to an expected value of 8/(1/9) = 72 hits ; or 27 volleys at BS 3+ for vehicle destruction.
300% more hits needed, the survivability is massively improved.
But...
Let's take a look as lascannon now, @ BS 4.
It is difficult to calculate the expected value of hits to destroy a dreadnought in 7th edition because of the duality of stripping HP one by one and risk of sudden explosion.
To avoid the pain of building an obnoxious spread sheet let's assume this approximation : @ AP2 on a on the damage table you count 3 HP instead of 1.
probability of removing 3 HP via penetrating hits : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 = 1/18
probability of removing 1 HP : 2/3 * 1/6 (glancing hits) + 2/3 * 1/2 * 5/6 (non explosive penetrating hits) = 7/18
expected value of HP per shot : 3*1/18 + 7/18 = 10/18 ; so to remove 3 you will need 3 / (10/18) = 5.40 lascannon shots approximately.
Now in 8th edition, it's simpler.
Each lascannon shot fired @ BS 3+ has 2/3 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 50/108 probability of applying damage. Each damage has a mean value of 3.5 HP removed.
So to remove all 8 HP of the dreadnought you need : 8 / (3.5 * 50/108) = 4.94 lascannon shots approximately.
As you can see, in this case, because of the introduction of multiple damage and lowering of T value of the dreadnought, his survivability is somewhat lowered in 8th edition.
I don't know about everyone else, but to me this seems perfect. The dread is more resiliant to mid-strength weapons, but a tank busting Lascannon is now fit for purpose. You no longer have a one-weapon-fits-all situation - you need the right tool for the job. I like this
Why is this perfect? Dreads were virtually useless in the last FIVE editions of the game. The logic escapes me of something being "fine" if an already terrible unit being LESS resilient.
For some reason it seems as if the general 40k population is traumatized by The Wraithlord Syndrome (TWS) where as T8 is somehow too powerful. A T7 dreadnought is an actual downgrade from AV12 (ignoring the 6 to wound everything rule in 8th). If MC's like Trygons are 12+ wounds that'll be even more absurd compared to Dreadnoughts.
If a hypothetical unit is 30% worse than another unit it needs a (difference +50%) buff to be equal.
There is so much we don't yet know about dreadnoughts:
1. We don't know what special rules the may have or if they have any specific rules for previously being a vehicle.
2. We don't know how much a dreadnought costs compared to other units. They may be much more cost effective in this edition if not stronger.
3. We know very little of the stats for the dread's armaments (only the lascannon so far), which could still leave the possibility that it could be an effective shooting platform or a melee monster.
Kirasu wrote: 2nd edition isn't current 40k (which started in 3rd Ed) and no they weren't good in 4th. There hasn't been an instance where n av12 dreadnought​ has been useful except for grey knights in 5th.
You cannot compare rogue trader to anything else, as it was more like a board game (fluff doesn't match either)
2nd Ed can only be compared to necromunda.
3rd-7th is modern 40k and can be compared.
I realize they're different systems, but many of the units were the same and related to each other in similar ways. I will compare them.
In 4th dreads were great because they could halt many assaults due to their armor, and also counted as 10 models for cc resolution, which made it much easier to eliminate units.
Ravajaxe wrote: Corrected some minor mistakes in first calculation.
Yes I'm perfectly in line with the changes, this seems good to rebalance the game.
But I wanted to point out that the idea that vehicles will be tougher against all threats is not true.
Well, we still don't know weapons profiles for weapons other than Lascannons, nor points costs. Scatter Laser is likely to be Dmg 1 AP-. So it is going to be much less efficient against former AV11-12 vehicles than nowadays. Autocannon might be Dmg 2 Rend -1. That would make it modestly effective. OTOH, Dreads can now be damaged with low-STR weapons which they were formerly immune against. Even though those weapons are not particularly effective, it still adds up.
People of course take weapons which they find effective. So S6-S7 weapons will be dumped in favour of high-STR shooting and if it's plentiful in the game, Vehicles still won't be durable. OTOH, if Lascannons and their ilk are priced like in 4th/5th edition (35pts apiece) then they aren't really spammed in huge quantities. We'll see.
Impossible to say as we don't definitively know the S/T table still works the same, or even still exists, but I believe, based in existing mechanics, in excess of 200.
I would like to put out some arguments on vehicle resiliency. I will take the dreadnought as an example because we have his statline obviously.
Let's assume that scatter laser, a typical medium strength spammable weapon, a favourite in 7th ed will get its stats (S:6 AP:6 heavy 4) converted to this :
S:6 Rend 0 heavy 4.
probability to strip a HP in 7th ed : 1/6 which leads to an expected value of 3/(1/6) = 18 hits ; or 6.75 volleys at BS:4 for vehicle destruction.
probability to strip a HP in 8th ed : 1/9 wich leads to an expected value of 8/(1/9) = 72 hits ; or 27 volleys at BS 3+ for vehicle destruction.
300% more hits needed, the survivability is massively improved.
But...
Let's take a look as lascannon now, @ BS 4.
It is difficult to calculate the expected value of hits to destroy a dreadnought in 7th edition because of the duality of stripping HP one by one and risk of sudden explosion.
To avoid the pain of building an obnoxious spread sheet let's assume this approximation : @ AP2 on a on the damage table you count 3 HP instead of 1.
probability of removing 3 HP via penetrating hits : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 = 1/18
probability of removing 1 HP : 2/3 * 1/6 (glancing hits) + 2/3 * 1/2 * 5/6 (non explosive penetrating hits) = 7/18
expected value of HP per shot : 3*1/18 + 7/18 = 10/18 ; so to remove 3 you will need 3 / (10/18) = 5.40 lascannon shots approximately.
Now in 8th edition, it's simpler.
Each lascannon shot fired @ BS 3+ has 2/3 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 50/108 probability of applying damage. Each damage has a mean value of 3.5 HP removed.
So to remove all 8 HP of the dreadnought you need : 8 / (3.5 * 50/108) = 4.94 lascannon shots approximately.
As you can see, in this case, because of the introduction of multiple damage and lowering of T value of the dreadnought, his survivability is somewhat lowered in 8th edition.
I don't know about everyone else, but to me this seems perfect. The dread is more resiliant to mid-strength weapons, but a tank busting Lascannon is now fit for purpose. You no longer have a one-weapon-fits-all situation - you need the right tool for the job. I like this
Why is this perfect? Dreads were virtually useless in the last FIVE editions of the game. The logic escapes me of something being "fine" if an already terrible unit being LESS resilient.
For some reason it seems as if the general 40k population is traumatized by The Wraithlord Syndrome (TWS) where as T8 is somehow too powerful. A T7 dreadnought is an actual downgrade from AV12 (ignoring the 6 to wound everything rule in 8th). If MC's like Trygons are 12+ wounds that'll be even more absurd compared to Dreadnoughts.
If a hypothetical unit is 30% worse than another unit it needs a (difference +50%) buff to be equal.
Because they're only less resiliant to certain weapons. it creates a meta where you crack tanks with lascannons, not autocannons, which is an improvement over 7th edition, where generally people just bring a bunch of medium power heavy weapons that can spam multiple shots to strip hull points fast. you could argue for hours on end over Fragile or not unit X "should be" as it's really a matter of personal preferance, but the change over has put vehicles and MCs on an even footing, which is good. it's also made weapons for certain jobs a little more clear. whereas 7th edition tended to have "one heavy weapon to rule them all" (grav and scatter lasers)
A BS4 Boltgun has 1/27 chance of making a wound to Dreadnought. Since Dreadnought has 8 wounds, average is 216 shots. However Q&A slightly hinted that Boltguns might have some special rule.
I actually hope that they do, as they stand now what we know of the rules (S4, no Rend), Boltguns aren't very good against, well, anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Souleater wrote: People have been complaining that MC's are much more resilient than vehicles for years.
Dreadnoughts get the same mechanics....but folks are complaining that they are fragile?
Well, MC's might also suck this edition I think Carnifex is going to be 8 Wounds 4+ save. If so, Heavy weapons drop it quite quickly.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Since someone lodged a complaint against Boltguns being able to take down a dreadnought, how many Boltguns shots are needed to bring one down?
Each SM bolter shot has 2/3 * 1/6 * 1/3 = 1/27 chance of removing a HP. So to destroy a dreadnought with only bolters you will need to fire 8*27 = 216 shots.
That's a lot, but you can see it the other way around. In previous editions, when you were firing a tactical squad with lascannon and maybe plasma on such a target, your bolter wielding dudes were purely wasted.
Now they can add up in the process and sometimes score a HP / wound.
How can a boltgun wound a dread if dread is t7 and boltgun is s4 you would need a 7 to wound or have I missed something tell me it's not a case of 6's always wound ?
10penceman wrote: How can a boltgun wound a dread if dread is t7 and boltgun is s4 you would need a 7 to wound or have I missed something tell me it's not a case of 6's always wound ?
Wound table is probably not the same. They explicitly said that "Everything can hurt everything".
Backfire wrote: A BS4 Boltgun has 1/27 chance of making a wound to Dreadnought. Since Dreadnought has 8 wounds, average is 216 shots. However Q&A slightly hinted that Boltguns might have some special rule.
I actually hope that they do, as they stand now what we know of the rules (S4, no Rend), Boltguns aren't very good against, well, anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Souleater wrote: People have been complaining that MC's are much more resilient than vehicles for years.
Dreadnoughts get the same mechanics....but folks are complaining that they are fragile?
Well, MC's might also suck this edition I think Carnifex is going to be 8 Wounds 4+ save. If so, Heavy weapons drop it quite quickly.
I sometimes wonder if being S4 IS the boltguns special rule. if they downgrade all the other infantry weapons to S3 that'd make the bolt gun really stand out. and IMHO it'd suit the fluff too. it's a gun with no subtly, just "big boom"
Well, MC's might also suck this edition I think Carnifex is going to be 8 Wounds 4+ save. If so, Heavy weapons drop it quite quickly.
This is fine with me. It gives a role for heavy weapons. Vehicles and Monsters will laugh off scatter laser spam but will have to fear Lascannons. Fine with me. When was the last time you actually saw a Lascannon on the table?
Well, MC's might also suck this edition I think Carnifex is going to be 8 Wounds 4+ save. If so, Heavy weapons drop it quite quickly.
This is fine with me. It gives a role for heavy weapons. Vehicles and Monsters will laugh off scatter laser spam but will have to fear Lascannons. Fine with me. When was the last time you actually saw a Lascannon on the table?
Or a Bright Lance, Dark Lance, Rail Gun etc. Single shot, high strength weapons have been useless in 7th, for them to get their anti-vehicle/monster role back is a good thing.
Imateria wrote: Alternatively, you currently need 27 shots from bolters into the rear armour to take down a Dread.
Alas, there might not be a rear armour anymore :( have they said anything about Vehicle facings and Firing arcs?
It's pretty obvious that whittling down a tank with small arms is going to be chore equivalent to killing 2++ rerollable deathstars today. So it is likely not gonna be particularly unbalancing, but it begs to question, is it really necessary? What I'm afraid we will see a lot of "So my Sergeant is still alive, he will shoot that Land Raider with his Laspistol" which just drags down the game for no real purpose.
Or a Bright Lance, Dark Lance, Rail Gun etc. Single shot, high strength weapons have been useless in 7th, for them to get their anti-vehicle/monster role back is a good thing.
I don't understand what they were thinking when making up 7th edition Vehicle damage. It was obvious that vehicles were killed via glance spam and Hull points, so their solutions to make Vehicles tougher...was to reduce chance for one-shot kill. Mega facepalm.
I WANT big things to only go down effectively by big guns. I am looking forward to being able to bring medium armor walkers and tanks again. I hated that a bare bones tactical squad was capable of bringing down my Predators or Dreadnoughts. Now my Crimson Fists are going to have some ground game. Hopefully they will still get a bonus for busting open tanks (maybe +1 Str on Devastator Squad weapons?).
Or a Bright Lance, Dark Lance, Rail Gun etc. Single shot, high strength weapons have been useless in 7th, for them to get their anti-vehicle/monster role back is a good thing.
I don't understand what they were thinking when making up 7th edition Vehicle damage. It was obvious that vehicles were killed via glance spam and Hull points, so their solutions to make Vehicles tougher...was to reduce chance for one-shot kill. Mega facepalm.
+1
6th edition damage table was almost fine, what the game needed was vehicles with decent HP numbers, at least one more than what was given.
Sad to see that a reboot of the game mechanics is the solution found to all these equivocations.
GW store managers have group meeting last week April. Pre-order following Saturday. Launch 10th June.
Re Physic phase. As I understand you always have 2 Dice for each spell, The strength of the spell has a relative casting number. So if a spell has a casting value of 7. All you have to do is throw 7 on 2 x D6.
Starter box is Marines 2 x Characters, 2 x Marine Squads, Assault Squad, Devastator Squad. v Death Guard, 1 x Character, Cultists, a few Terminators, Plague Marines plus blight Drones.
Found this on T9A. So take it with borderline lethal doses of salt.
My main list at the moment involves a Land Raider and I'm totally cool with the idea of a space empire's small arms fire being able to damage it if they get a super-lucky shot at a track link or gun barrel. I look forward to the desperation of the loyalist and xenos wretches when they blaze away at it with rifles, trying to delay the attack of the inhabitants by chipping paint off the behemoth.
This isn't even without precedent - in 2ed, if you could move and fire a weapon you could also use it in CC against a vehicle and get a bonus to penetration representing the ability to get more critical strikes at close quarters; in, 3ed an early armoured company list allowed any weapon to get a glancing hit against any AV if it rolled a 6 after a 6 to pen, as a balancing measure for a mass of Leman Russ tanks rolling into a metagame that GW was trying hard to curate to be about Troops.
Hell, whilst Tyranids - my second army - have a codex that's not really fit for else but casual fun play and 7ed is an environment that adds to their troubles, I'm happy in principle for my prey to get Overwatch against me. Nothing feels like a proper swarm attack like running over the bodies of your brood-kin that depleted the prey's ammunition before the feeding frenzy begins.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I wonder if, in order to deny a spell, you have to roll higher than the other psyker. Also, maybe perils will still be of you roll double sixes?
Maybe, or double ones. In one of the earlier editions (4th, I think?) Perils were boxcars and snakeeyes.
7th Edition became the game of bland cookie cutter lists. A unit that didn't have multi-shot weapons with at least strength 6 became uselss, thus those units were not taken. I don't think I've seen a heavy bolter used since 4th edition. If it wasn't an assault cannon/scatter laser, or HYMP, it was garbage.
Add into this that certain vehicles became jokes. Dreadnoughts weren't great, but still better than Sentinels or the Leman Russ.
Want to win a game in 7th? Spam monstrous and gargantuan creatures (preferably fast, even better if they fly), then pair them up with fast moving shooty units and a psycher(s) that cast invisibility.
If you were orks, IG, sisters, Tyranids, or Dark eldar you had to find your fun in fighting uphill battles.
Whoever thought several glances to kill a vehicle was a better mechanic than trying to one-shot it with the most OTT anti-tank gun your army has got it wrong.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I wonder if, in order to deny a spell, you have to roll higher than the other psyker. Also, maybe perils will still be of you roll double sixes?
Maybe, or double ones.
In one of the earlier editions (4th, I think?) Perils are boxcars and snakeeyes.
Needing double sixes to deny would be cool. Same probability as snakeeyes, so either one works for me. But it would make denying easier as before you needed to deny each warp charge. But casting is easier, so it sort of evens out.
Whoever thought several glances to kill a vehicle was a better mechanic than trying to one-shot it with the most OTT anti-tank gun your army has got it wrong.
Hull Points were a solution to the problem of 5th edition, where you could hit Glances or Penetrates all day, and not do anything if you rolled poorly on Damage Table. It was really frustrating unless you had Railguns (I did).
Alas, they gave Vehicles too few Hull Points so they became too easy to whittle down, and then inexplicably failed to address that in 7th, and then even more inexplicably gave us Scatterbikes which did nothing but strip down hull points...
If it's anything like aos, you just have to beat your opponents roll on 2D6.
Also, anyone worried about small arms damaging big vehicles and monsters, look at it from a different angle. Did anyone see that movie battlefield los angles? Remember how that guy shot down the alien flier, with a trap, his rifle and the radio? Think of something like that. Imagination.
This is how everyone can attack fliers in aos. It's assumed that they have what is needed to so. Grappling hooks, gliders, world war z body pyramids...anything you think up. Just use your imaginations.
Yeah, I started in 3rd edition, where I once started a game with a single Necron Warrior in range of a Hammerhead. I got first turn, hit, glanced, and destroyed it.
3rd-5th edition didn't have vehicles that were too tough or too weak. They were just.....random. If you were lucky a sinlge guy with a meltabomb could drop a landraider. If you were unlucky a devistator sqaud could wiff on killing a Chimera, or possibly just immobilize it.
Here's to hoping that GW has finally learned how to balance vehicles.
cuda1179 wrote: Yeah, I started in 3rd edition, where I once started a game with a single Necron Warrior in range of a Hammerhead. I got first turn, hit, glanced, and destroyed it.
3rd-5th edition didn't have vehicles that were too tough or too weak. They were just.....random. If you were lucky a sinlge guy with a meltabomb could drop a landraider. If you were unlucky a devistator sqaud could wiff on killing a Chimera, or possibly just immobilize it.
Here's to hoping that GW has finally learned how to balance vehicles.
And hopefully balance the whole game along with it, hopefully they give each faction their own flavour and don't hand it out to everyone else in formations and begin the power creeping all over again, psychic powers and special rules need to lean the balance in an armies favour so that their opponent can use tactics and his own armies abilities to try to tip it back not flip the table with rediculous rules that his army gained through formations. It's a tough one but I'm hopeful for 8th, I like what I've seen so far
Just as a general side note, I know I'm playing with plastic man-dollies. I know this is a game, so I am fine with certain abstractions. That being said, I'd like a somewhat believable rules base.
I want something that is more than moving action figures around and making pew-pew noises. On the other hand, having a 10,000 page manual for an ultra realistic version of warfare in the future isn't really enjoyable.
I feel that 7th tried to be a little too much of the battle silulator, and at the same time the initial release of AOS was a little too close to playing with action figures. I'm glad AOS readjusted itself, and it looks like 8th edition may have found that happy medium.
Why is this perfect? Dreads were virtually useless in the last FIVE editions of the game. The logic escapes me of something being "fine" if an already terrible unit being LESS resilient.
For some reason it seems as if the general 40k population is traumatized by The Wraithlord Syndrome (TWS) where as T8 is somehow too powerful. A T7 dreadnought is an actual downgrade from AV12 (ignoring the 6 to wound everything rule in 8th). If MC's like Trygons are 12+ wounds that'll be even more absurd compared to Dreadnoughts.
If a hypothetical unit is 30% worse than another unit it needs a (difference +50%) buff to be equal.
It's funny you should mention Wraithlords actually. I did some maths against Wraithknights and Riptides in the current game, and it's quite interesting. Compared to the current Riptide, the Dread is more durable vs S5+ shooting. VS the Wraithknight it's more durable vs S5 and S8+ shooting. Now, granted this is a totally new system and those units will doubtless be buffed to be stronger, but I think people are going to have a very rude awakening to how strong these guys are in terms of durability. Even against AP -3 S7 shooting (which is what I'm assuming plasma will be), you're looking at 13.5 hits to kill, instead of ~7.7 hits today (inc chance of instakill). That's harder to kill than a Riptide which isn't using the 3++ reactor - they take 11.25 hits on average to die. You will NEED anti-tank shooting to kill them, and that's good; they've become more durable than they've ever been.
Also, they've not been virtually useless in the past 5 editions. The double autocannon variants saw a good amount of play in 5th (i.e. almost every army used them which had the option to do so), 4th ed saw a LOT of ML+LC/AC dreads played and in 7th, ironclads see a bit of play though admittedly due to broken formations as much as anything else. They've not been great, many of their weapon options have been pretty poor but they've seen play. Their real issue, outside of janky hull point issues, has always been points cost and their poor assault capability (which, in fairness, was somewhat fixed last year), not durability - to know how good they currently are, we'd need to see points across the game, so it's not worth even speculating as to whether they'll be good or bad; we can't know until a meta forms how good they'll be.
Vehicles having a toughness/wounds is Ok if done right. It just changes the mechanics of killing vehicles a little. That said, I DON'T like vehicles not having armor facings - it dumbs down the game. On the other hand, there is an upside in that you can drive your vehicle into the midst of the enemy and be more likely to survive, which I kind of like. Maybe. If it is done right.
kestral wrote: Vehicles having a toughness/wounds is Ok if done right. It just changes the mechanics of killing vehicles a little. That said, I DON'T like vehicles not having armor facings - it dumbs down the game. On the other hand, there is an upside in that you can drive your vehicle into the midst of the enemy and be more likely to survive, which I kind of like. Maybe. If it is done right.
There's still so much we don't know. The "vehicle" type could mean they could as -1 toughness when shot in the side, and -2 when hit in the back for all we know. Anyone bitching that dreads sucked in 7th and older and now they are WORSE doesn't have enough information to make that judgement yet. They might have worse survivability to lascannons, or plasma or whatever, but as long as those weapons cost more, or dreads cost less, or the other special rules it has made it better it would work out in the Dread's favor.
I'm super excited for 40k for the first time since the 6th edition rumors (which ended up really disappointing me). A clean slate is exactly what GW needed to do to get all the old timers that quit to give it a fair shot again.
After finally getting through all of the rumors and the most recent Q & A, I've gotta say I was pretty excited. That is until the whole, 'we want all weapons to be relevant' bit.
Standard issue lasguns blowing up tanks is not something that makes any sort of sense. At all. From a game standpoint all it does is make vehicles worse (who knew THAT could happen)and make infantry better (again, who knew that could happen either).
From a fluff standpoint? Well, that's never mattered anyway so I'll just rage about that internally.
Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all vehicles. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Leman Russ or Land Raider when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?
Frankenberry wrote: After finally getting through all of the rumors and the most recent Q & A, I've gotta say I was pretty excited. That is until the whole, 'we want all weapons to be relevant' bit.
Standard issue lasguns blowing up tanks is not something that makes any sort of sense. At all. From a game standpoint all it does is make vehicles worse (who knew THAT could happen)and make infantry better (again, who knew that could happen either).
From a fluff standpoint? Well, that's never mattered anyway so I'll just rage about that internally.
Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all vehicles. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Leman Russ or Land Raider when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?
Didn't they say it would take like 500 lasguns to take down a landraider?
Frankenberry wrote: After finally getting through all of the rumors and the most recent Q & A, I've gotta say I was pretty excited. That is until the whole, 'we want all weapons to be relevant' bit.
Standard issue lasguns blowing up tanks is not something that makes any sort of sense. At all. From a game standpoint all it does is make vehicles worse (who knew THAT could happen)and make infantry better (again, who knew that could happen either).
From a fluff standpoint? Well, that's never mattered anyway so I'll just rage about that internally.
Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all vehicles. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Leman Russ or Land Raider when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?
Didn't they say it would take like 500 lasguns to take down a landraider?
Bascially, yes. It's such a non-argument that it barely warrants mentioning, but we're likely to get it every 5 pages because people don't read back in threads any further than that.
Future War Cultist wrote: It's weird how lasguns can barely hurt anything with decent toughness and saves except for heavy vehicles, apparently.
I brought this up earlier in the thread. Everyone bemoans lowly infantry weapons currently as basically worthless. But suddenly they're going to be the weapon of choice for vehicle hunting.
Future War Cultist wrote: It's weird how lasguns can barely hurt anything with decent toughness and saves except for heavy vehicles, apparently.
I brought this up earlier in the thread. Everyone bemoans lowly infantry weapons currently as basically worthless. But suddenly they're going to be the weapon of choice for vehicle hunting.
I knew I saw this mentioned earlier. You're absolutely right.
No, vehicle damage is apparently linear, with things like weapon destroyed or -1 to hit at set points on their wound track.
These wound tracks will be bespoke though, so you can have a vehicle that basically keeps going until almost dead, and another, with the same number of wounds, which starts to fall to pieces very quickly.
yeah, that's the thing, if a Dreadnought has 8 wounds I'd suspect that a Land Raider has about 11, probably with a 2+ save. (total speculation at this point)
If that's anywhere close, it means it would take the shooting of an entire IG army to take out a landraider. if that every does happen, just thank the other guy for not shooting at the rest of your army that is now about to destroy him.
I mean, really, how often do people think this will ever happen outside of a megabattle? I'm betting you can go 5 normal games between even seeing one wound being lost on a land raider from lasguns/boltguns.
Lockark wrote: I just realized. With the change in mechanic this might mean shaken and stunned aren't a thing anymore?
Correct. No more having vehicles just sitting there doing nothing yet not dying.
Incidentally, assuming that lasguns wound a landraider on 6+, and assuming that it has a 2+ save, 50 of them will only inflict 0.69 wounds (1.39 at rapid fire range) a turn. I think it will have about 16 wounds.
Yeah, lasguns will not be a serious threat to big vehicles. So can we just move past this please?
Edit: 16 wounds might be too much, but my point still stands.
The whole "Dreadnoughts have lost durability, the sky is falling" crowd has me a bit confused.
Dreadnought's durability against dedicated anti-tank weapons (based on the stats for lascannons and some reasonable extrapolations) is decreased slightly, (Somewhere around a 15% decrease, I believe?) though they also don't appear to be 1-Hit KO-able anymore, which at least somewhat mitigates that decrease in durability (though it may not do so entirely).
Dreadnoughts durability against small arms fire is a bit more complicated - against S3 or lower, it lost its invulnerability (to which extent, we won't know until we see the To-Wound Table), and against S4 and 5, its durability was decreased for the front and side arcs and increased for the back arc (from 3W wound-on-6s no save to 8W probably-wound-on-6s 3+ save...), but while ALL low Strength weapons are stated to be able to damage a Dreadnought, they don't necessarily do so efficiently.
But its pretty clear that while infantry weapons will "be able to harm" Dreadnoughts, they won't be able to do so with any sort of efficiency. 100 Guardsmen shooting lasguns for several rounds is just not going to be an efficient way to remove a single, relatively cheap-in-points model.
Dreadnoughts seem to have become more durable against Mid-Strength High RoF weapons (HYMPs/MPs, Scatter Lasers, etc.) if the reasonable speculation on their stats is correct (Heavy 4/2 S7 AP-1 and Heavy 4 S6 AP0, respectively) due to the ability to save (either 4+/3+ or 3+/2+ or better, respectively, depending on Cover) and the significantly higher number of wounds (more than doubled!) overcoming the comparatively decreased "to-wound/to-damage" roll needed (for S6 and 7, it went from 6+ and 5+ respectively to 5+ and 4+ respectively).
Looking back at 7th edition, I think its fair to say (based on personal experience and forum input) that when attacking a Dreadnought, the general order for the MOST point-efficient way to kill them was Mid-S High RoF weapon and infantry weapons (S4-5) from behind (generally needing a 5 or 6 to wound and relying entirely on weight of fire to knock off HPs), High-S, Low RoF weapons, and infantry weapons (S3 or less) from behind.
In 8th, again speaking generally (and based on existing stats and reasonable speculations), the order seems to have changed to be High-S/Low RoF weapons, Mid-S/High RoF weapons, and infantry weapons.
Without more information (particularly point costs, cover save rules, and the to-wound table), I don't think anyone can definitively say that Dreadnoughts, AS A WHOLE, have lost durability. They've arguably lost durability in one arena (High S/Low RoF weapons like Lascannons), gained durability in another arena (Mid-S/Low RoF weapons like Scatter Lasers), and homogenized durability in the last arena (Low S/High Quantity weapons like bolters)... but were the High S/Low RoF weapons common/point efficient before, or was the biggest danger to Dreadnought-like vehicles, and most point efficient method of destroying, exactly the weapon group that got its effectiveness decreased by the change in edition?
The only real outlier were Melta weapons (and even then, they seemed to often be available in quantities that dwarfed that of others in that category), and the biggest issue with THEM in 7th edition (their increased chance at 1-Hit-KOing) has the potential to have been addressed (don't know their rules yet, but I'm guessing that 1-Hit-KOing is... unlikely).
Put another way: If all armies in 7th were stripped of Mid-S/High RoF weapons and forced to use High-S/Low RoF weapons to kill tanks, non-special versions of the latter had their ability to 1-Hit-KO tanks removed, and all infantry weapons were given the gauss rule but each such weapon only dealt 1/8 an HP for each glance, would tanks be sufficiently durable for their points?
Frankenberry wrote: Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all vehicles. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Leman Russ or Land Raider when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?
"Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all monstrous creatures. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Riptide when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?"
This is you. This is what you sound like. Unless you're seriously proposing that firing 288 lasguns (on average) is a realistic threat to a dreadnaught (which, if the current cost of a guardsman is anything to go by, is ~1400 points of just lasguns all in range, all firing at a single unit) then you should probably reconsider.
Can someone tell me what HYMP/MP means? Glossary links aren't working on iOS -.-
Not taking a Land Raider or Riptide because it can be damaged by anything is like not building a statue because any wind-blown particle can erode it. If you're worried about getting sandblasted to death, just bite the bullet and GIVE ME RAMMING SPEED
(I hope I can still run things over/T-bone them...)
mate they have been out 5 years of 30, hardly classic, especially when they altered them for 4 of those 5.
Christ...
Provided that the "To Wound" chart stays the same all vehicles benefit from the new system - try out the scrolls here 
on the damage table you count 3 
