So this is it the new weapon profils.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/26/warhammer-40000-weapons/

Notice: Bolter has no AP

I am not sure if i like it or not. What do you think

Orks, Guardsmen, Kabalite Warriors rejoice!
You can actually roll your saves....

So a las cannon is - 3 to armor.

Against 3+ armor units their armor save is now 6 right?

Flamers OP

D weapons are gone.

 curran12 wrote:
D weapons are gone.

D weapons, for example, are gone, and instead there is a scalable Strength and damage that matches the effectiveness you’d expect from every weapon.

So you'll still have weapons that do something like - heavy 3d6, Str 15 Dmg 2d6, - 6 to saves.
- I mean you need something to kill these potential SHV and GC replacements with 30+ wounds

 Luciferian wrote:
Flamers OP

I dont think so. That's 3.5 hits. In 7th you could easily hit 5 or even 10 especially against horde armies.

Seriously though, I can't see too many other things being as cost effective a way to bury your opponent in dice rolls than a huge amount of flamers that automatically hit D6 times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nordsturmking wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Flamers OP

I dont think so. That's 3.5 hits. In 7th you could easily hit 5 or even 10 especially against horde armies.

The difference is that you can hit single models more than once.

Individual templates became less effective. A squad with several of them became more effective, as you no longer need them in front to avoid hitting your own men.

You know who just got even more powerful?

SOB
Salamanders

Fire Dragons....5 Meltas each doing probably d6 wounds St8 - 6 to saves.... (taking stats from Shadow Wars)

Well, remember that the meltas will be only killing off one model at a time anyway, most likely. Amazing for monster and tank hunting absolutely. And my Dominions cannot wait for that... >:3

I'm really glad I put so many meltas in my army. Now I'm curious how Grav will work...

 troa wrote:
Individual templates became less effective. A squad with several of them became more effective, as you no longer need them in front to avoid hitting your own men.

I must directly contradict you; they become viable where before they were a bad option because if you're shooting 2+ units at a target, every time one unit killed models in the target unit, the succeeding units had less potential hits. It's why you had/have wyvern batteries, instead of 3 individual wyverns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm really glad I put so many meltas in my army. Now I'm curious how Grav will work...

I'm holding out for d6 on small blasts. Plasma cannons will become a joy to behold.

So, we haven't see if Mortal Wounds exist yet in new 40k. That would be the way to go with Melta. 1d6 Mortal wounds.

It would make the weapon instant kill a grunt and deadly vs vehicles/MC.


I would guess plasma will look like: 1d3 hits of 1d3 wounds. With a roll of 1 doing 1 wound to firer.

Missile Launchers are probably Frag 1d6 hits of 1 wound each, Krak 1 hit of 1d6 wounds.

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm really glad I put so many meltas in my army. Now I'm curious how Grav will work...

I'm hoping a lot less shots but multiple wounds so it will be effective against single large targets but not annihilate entire units with moderate saves.

Anyway.
Approximation time!
Since Lascannons were Ap2 and have become -3
Current Ap 4 weapons will likely become -1
Ap 3 would be -2
and Ap 1 -4


Also I'm hoping melta weapons will do D6 damage (Like the lascannon) but at 1/2 range or less change to 3+D3

I regret the template for flamers as it was both practical and visually fun, but it's even let game equipment you have to pay.

I'd rather wait to give any true opinion, because this will depend on the overall system for shooting and weapons stats and how it could perform within the overall rules, but it looks good at least.

 malamis wrote:

 troa wrote:
Individual templates became less effective. A squad with several of them became more effective, as you no longer need them in front to avoid hitting your own men.

I must directly contradict you; they become viable where before they were a bad option because if you're shooting 2+ units at a target, every time one unit killed models in the target unit, the succeeding units had less potential hits. It's why you had/have wyvern batteries, instead of 3 individual wyverns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm really glad I put so many meltas in my army. Now I'm curious how Grav will work...

I'm holding out for d6 on small blasts. Plasma cannons will become a joy to behold.

It's gonna be D3 dude

ERJAK wrote:

It's gonna be D3 dude

Let me dream X)

It'd be interesting to see if weapons introduce to-hit modifiers (blasts+1 for example). Large blasts at d6 will be interesting, the Standard Russ would become almost viable under that profile.

The biggest change with the way old template weapons work now is that they cannot hit multiple units. Flamers are now good against single models and units, but they do not have the upside against units that they used to. If we think of the Baleflamer from the heldrake, it currently can easily kill a whole squad of 10+ models, if it is changed to D6 hits it would be far less effective. Where as something like the mentioned Burna Boyz now can now put out a lot of hurt (15D6 hits) to any unit. Essentially your effectiveness is no longer tied to unit size any more.

Glad to see no rend on bolters, as much as fluff might suggest otherwise, I like the idea that basic weapons for the most part allow units to get whatever saves they have. Currently 5+ and 6+ saves seem largely meaningless.

My last thought is that in general these changes are a general nerf on single multiple wound models in comparison to multiple model units. As small arms currently effect all units the same, and big guns like the las-cannon do all their wounds to a single model. So based on stats from yesterday a terminator is as durable as 4 marines against a bolter, but only as durable as 2 against a lascannon. However, 1 lascannon shot can kill a terminator where it cannot kill 2 marines.

So, consider a Land Raider Redeemer.

If the Flamer is now an 8" shot, would that be from the front of the hull, or from the sponson itself?

If it's from the front of the hull, that might be viable.

Hoping storm bolters get a -1 at least.

 Marmatag wrote:
So, consider a Land Raider Redeemer.

If the Flamer is now an 8" shot, would that be from the front of the hull, or from the sponson itself?

If it's from the front of the hull, that might be viable.

Hoping storm bolters get a -1 at least.

Maybe vehicle mounted templates will get an extended range?

Since the Flamethrower armory has been tied down to the template for 10+ years, it might mean we get *variety* in burninating from now on.

My guess is they won't. They'll likely just be Assault 2. And bolters will still get an extra shot within half range.

Templates going away does kinda make me sad. It was a nice visual, and realistic, way of determining hits.

 Grey Templar wrote:
My guess is they won't. They'll likely just be Assault 2. And bolters will still get an extra shot within half range.

Templates going away does kinda make me sad. It was a nice visual, and realistic, way of determining hits.

I 100% agree with you.

Here's how i see it:

1. in a friendly fun-gamer world, the template was awesome. i loved using them. there really aren't disputes regarding templates, scatter, etc, here, because everyone came to have fun and winning, while awesome, is secondary to playing and having fun.

2. in a competitive scenario, templates & scatter become a huge point of consternation, and they bog the game down. You need an unbiased third party in a lot of template scenarios.

The other side of the coin is that if indeed the template isn't being dropped from the sponson and we treat flamers like any other weapon, that makes them a lot more viable in the Land Raider Redeemer case. 8" from the hull on any side will actually hit things. To the point where a redeemer isn't a total waste.

EDIT- how awesome will it be if Grey Knight Paladins have 4 wounds each? That would be awesomesauce.

I guess I'll have to stop calling it rend now, though they did go with the AoS rend range (0-3). I'm going to guess meltas do extra damage when they are in melta range, maybe 2d6 or something.

If that's right, a melta could one shot a dreadnought a bit less than half the time when in melta range. As opposed to now where a melta could one shot a dread about half the time when in half range. An average of three shots, to kill a dread with a Las Cannon, compared to twoish now. So, all in all looks like low-end vehicles are a bit more durable, which is great. Now I'm intensely curious to see what monoliths and land raiders are like them being the upper-end of the non-lord of war vehicles.

One thing I noticed is that the boltgun is listed as a rapid fire 1 type weapon. Rapid fires number of shot was always fixed before but I wonder what the number means. My guess is the number is the number of shots at max range and +1 at half range.

 Grimgold wrote:
I guess I'll have to stop calling it rend now, though they did go with the AoS rend range (0-3). I'm going to guess meltas do extra damage when they are in melta range, maybe 2d6 or something.

If that's right, a melta could one shot a dreadnought a bit less than half the time when in melta range. As opposed to now where a melta could one shot a dread about half the time when in half range. An average of three shots, to kill a dread with a Las Cannon, compared to twoish now. So, all in all looks like low-end vehicles are a bit more durable, which is great. Now I'm intensely curious to see what monoliths and land raiders are like them being the upper-end of the non-lord of war vehicles.

Actually meltas being AP1 might have a higher rend than lascannons. I would expect AP1 to translate to -5.

And remember, vehicles have a save. Dreadnoughts getting a 2+ save means against a lascannon they get a save - 5+. Whereas against a melta, if it was -5, they would not.

Also - do we know yet, if you get a save per wound, or one save roll for all wounds? I would *assume* that you get a save per wound, not a save per shot. So if that lascannon inflicts 6 wounds, you get 6 save rolls, not 1.

Not impressed with the lascannons variable damage. They should have made it like dmg3 or dmg4. Its supposed to be a really hard hitting weapon.
But with some unlucky rolls you could end up doing a single point of damage.

I see weapon types still remain, assault, RF, heavy. Wonder if the rules are exactly the same as 7th for them or some tweaks will be brought in.

Anyone want to mathammer a 4 man dev squad with LCs VS yesterdays Dreadnought stats?

Breng77 wrote:
The biggest change with the way old template weapons work now is that they cannot hit multiple units. Flamers are now good against single models and units, but they do not have the upside against units that they used to. If we think of the Baleflamer from the heldrake, it currently can easily kill a whole squad of 10+ models, if it is changed to D6 hits it would be far less effective.

What is 2" spacing?

Also this is hilarious, the age of Orks and IG getting saves!

It wasn't always possible to 2+" space an entire squad and still remain in cover or hidden from other models.

I like Orks and IG getting saves, sorry you liked them just getting removed by almost every weapon in the game.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I guess I'll have to stop calling it rend now, though they did go with the AoS rend range (0-3). I'm going to guess meltas do extra damage when they are in melta range, maybe 2d6 or something.

If that's right, a melta could one shot a dreadnought a bit less than half the time when in melta range. As opposed to now where a melta could one shot a dread about half the time when in half range. An average of three shots, to kill a dread with a Las Cannon, compared to twoish now. So, all in all looks like low-end vehicles are a bit more durable, which is great. Now I'm intensely curious to see what monoliths and land raiders are like them being the upper-end of the non-lord of war vehicles.

Actually meltas being AP1 might have a higher rend than lascannons. I would expect AP1 to translate to -5.

And remember, vehicles have a save. Dreadnoughts getting a 2+ save means against a lascannon they get a save - 5+. Whereas against a melta, if it was -5, they would not.

Also - do we know yet, if you get a save per wound, or one save roll for all wounds? I would *assume* that you get a save per wound, not a save per shot. So if that lascannon inflicts 6 wounds, you get 6 save rolls, not 1.

Dreadnoughts have a 3+ save, and I'd willing to bet real money that it's a save per wound rather than a save per hit. Meltas will at best be -4 if las cannons are -3, which is still enough to make it so Dreads don't get saves against the wounds. In any case bringing the right tool for the job is absolutely vital now, which will hopefully force more TAC style lists.

 Ratius wrote:
Not impressed with the lascannons variable damage. They should have made it like dmg3 or dmg4. Its supposed to be a really hard hitting weapon.
But with some unlucky rolls you could end up doing a single point of damage.

I see weapon types still remain, assault, RF, heavy. Wonder if the rules are exactly the same as 7th for them or some tweaks will be brought in.

Anyone want to mathammer a 4 man dev squad with LCs VS yesterdays Dreadnought stats?

Well pretty simply, if you hit on 3s and wound on 3s (9str vs 8str), firing 4 cannons, you would expect to deal 6.3 wounds before saves. He'd get a 5+ save so that would get 5.25 wounds through.

But there's a high degree of variance with 4D6 dmg.

The standard deviation of expected wounds from 1 devastator is 0.768, with the expected wounds being 1.575.

A 90% confidence interval would be 0.19 to 2.95. Which is a pretty wide net.

What does this mean? Just because your expected total wounds are only 6.3, doesn't mean you can feel confident at all that you'll hit anywhere near that number.

The Dread is t7 though no? So str 9 VS t7.
He also only has a 3+ save. So 3 - 3 is a 6+ save.

 Ratius wrote:
The Dread is t7 though no? So str 9 VS t7.
He also only has a 3+ save. So 3 - 3 is a 6+ save.

Yes. Assuming S9 wounds T7 on 2s, then 4 devs average 6.5 wounds on a dread.

Interesting, thanks.

Breng77 wrote:
It wasn't always possible to 2+" space an entire squad and still remain in cover or hidden from other models.

I like Orks and IG getting saves, sorry you liked them just getting removed by almost every weapon in the game.

I was cheering the fact that they DO get saves.

I'm glad Lascannons are useful against MCs now. Though the lack of AP on boltguns makes me kind of sad.

 Ratius wrote:
The Dread is t7 though no? So str 9 VS t7.
He also only has a 3+ save. So 3 - 3 is a 6+ save.

Oh whoops. I thought it was T8, 2+. Not sure why i had that in my head.

You're right, the expected wounds increase, in that case.

But again, your confidence interval will still be pretty nuts.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm glad Lascannons are useful against MCs now. Though the lack of AP on boltguns makes me kind of sad.

It's necessary to stop AP creep as in 2nd. Boltguns were -1, but that meant everything else had to be that much higher.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm glad Lascannons are useful against MCs now. Though the lack of AP on boltguns makes me kind of sad.

I disagree. if boltguns had a -save then they would easily be the weapon of choice.

Also this means heavy bolters will probably be more valuable.

Saves will be on Hits.

Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

Any other way is too powerful.

Martel732 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm glad Lascannons are useful against MCs now. Though the lack of AP on boltguns makes me kind of sad.

It's necessary to stop AP creep as in 2nd. Boltguns were -1, but that meant everything else had to be that much higher.

Oh, I'm sure they did it for a reason. I'm not too wound up about it either since any marine list that relies on bolters to kill is not a very good marine list.

 malamis wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

It's gonna be D3 dude

Let me dream X)

It'd be interesting to see if weapons introduce to-hit modifiers (blasts+1 for example). Large blasts at d6 will be interesting, the Standard Russ would become almost viable under that profile.

I could see them giving blasts bonuses to hit. They could also do it like in AoS where some artillery weapons get a bonus to hit based on unit size (usually +1 to hit for every 10 models in the unit). They could also possibly increase the number of hits based on unit size, so now maybe a normal large blast weapon will deal 1d6+1 hits against a 10 man squad of Guard and 1d6+5 hits against a 50 man blob of Guard. As an Ork player I'm somewhat biased towards the bonus to hit option rather than the increased number of hits option.

I could also see them giving different flamer weapons different ranges.

I think templates were visually cool, but getting rid of them allows a lot of nuance in how different area effect weapons are represented.

I'm interested in seeing if there is some sort of mechanic where big blasts might still "scatter" onto other units or hit multiple units. I can't think of a way to do this that isn't clunky, but hopefully the GW designers have as I like having that represented.

Saves will be on Hits.

Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

Any other way is too powerful.

Is this confirmed though?

Me likey longtime.

Ahem, I mean I really like this. This might mean they're getting rid of the Instant Death and Eternal Warrior rules, since a lascannon can potentially off a character in a single blast now so multi-wound models aren't quite so scared of being one-shot

I'm kinda sad to see the flamer template go, as using that was one of the most cathartic things you could do (especially with multiple flamers in a unit) but this way makes them more viable and less clunky. Especially weapons that use to have the torrent rule. This also makes it so that flamer weapons are not useless against single multi-wound model units (so burning a carnifex with a bunch of incinerators might actually be a viable tactic, rather than just a pathetic last-ditch effort). .

Naaris wrote:
Saves will be on Hits.

Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

Any other way is too powerful.

In Sigmar, you roll to hit then to wound, then armour saves are rolled, then the attacks dmg is rolled.
So if a weapon had 1 attack, 2+ to hit, 3+ to wound, d6 dmg, you'd roll 1 save if the attack wounded, and if you failed they then roll the d6 dmg. I'm expecting that's how it'll work in this

Wonder if this means Shuriken Catapults will be AP -1?

Exactly as terrible as I expected, this is gak

Youn wrote:
Wonder if this means Shuriken Catapults will be AP -1?

I'm really excited to see what every army gets now. I wander what the Thousand Sons are going to be like with their bolters and flamers...

So flamers effective range has slightly increased?

You no longer need to get as close as possible to get more template coverage, as long as you are 8" away you will always get D6 hits.
although you might roll a 1...

Not sure if this is a buff, nerf or sidegrade to be honest.

I see very similar rules tweaks as I see in Bolt Action.
What is this feeling I have?

Nevermind, as you were.
I will "accept" what comes out.
Lodge a couple "suggestions" with GW.
Then learn to accept further what is.

Everything I have seen so-far is what I had hoped for: adopting many Bolt Action methods, there is surprising complexity available with this simple method.
Just the alternating activation was more than I hoped for.

Naaris wrote:
Saves will be on Hits.

Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

Any other way is too powerful.

Wow I really hope you're wrong. This would be terrible.

You should have the opportunity to save all the wounds.

 hippyjr wrote:
So flamers effective range has slightly increased?

You no longer need to get as close as possible to get more template coverage, as long as you are 8" away you will always get D6 hits.
although you might roll a 1...

Not sure if this is a buff, nerf or sidegrade to be honest.

I really like it on paper. It has better range and won't get screwed over by unit spacing, which is a massive plus in my mind. Unit spacing ruined template weapons, especially small blast weapons. Also, a template wasn't more realistic, as a flame thrower would arch over and the user would sway it side to side, rather than statically shoot it directly forwards

 Marmatag wrote:

Naaris wrote:
Saves will be on Hits.

Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

Any other way is too powerful.

Wow I really hope you're wrong. This would be terrible.

You should have the opportunity to save all the wounds.

Its actually better that way. You're more likely to completely avoid all damage. Whereas if you take saves after the wound is multiplied, you are more likely to take more wounds.


Like this,

If a lascannon wounds you, you get 1 save. If you pass, you take no wounds. If you fail, you take D6 wounds.

Whereas the way you want is actually worse. It means if it wounds, you have to pass D6 saves. Sure, you're more likely to pass more saves when you roll more, but on average you will take more wounds with each shot.

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I regret the template for flamers as it was both practical and visually fun, but it's even let game equipment you have to pay.

Breng77 wrote:The biggest change with the way old template weapons work now is that they cannot hit multiple units. Flamers are now good against single models and units, but they do not have the upside against units that they used to. If we think of the Baleflamer from the heldrake, it currently can easily kill a whole squad of 10+ models, if it is changed to D6 hits it would be far less effective. Where as something like the mentioned Burna Boyz now can now put out a lot of hurt (15D6 hits) to any unit. Essentially your effectiveness is no longer tied to unit size any more.

One other advantage: Not having to worry about what's under the template and having super Templates hitting all levels.

Boltguns (S4) are now capable to damage Dreadnoughts (T7), if the old to-wound chart is still in place. The Boltgun is also Rapid Fire 1, which could mean double amount of shots for stationary shooters or double amount of shots for targets in 12´´. Poor Dreads.

If Age of Sigmar is anything to go by, a model won't get multiple saves for a multiple damage hit. It went: Hit roll > wound roll > save roll > damage

For example: Model A makes one attack that would inflict 3 damage. Model A hits model B on a 3+ (one roll) and successfully wounds on a 3+ (one roll). Model B fails its save (one roll). Model B suffers 3 damage and will die if it has 3 wounds or less remaining.

But that's if the AoS rules apply.

 Marmatag wrote:

Naaris wrote:
Saves will be on Hits.

Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

Any other way is too powerful.

Wow I really hope you're wrong. This would be terrible.

You should have the opportunity to save all the wounds.

Effectively, everything will be armed with (nerfed) destroyer weapons in their current incarnation?

I kind of like this, it'll probably lead to the state they want, which is that a 1000 pt game will be over in 20~ minutes (because EVERYTHING DIES) so for a really long engagement, you need crates of models, and thus need to spend more on the only thing that's valuable, which is the models

Go ahead. Shoot my T7 dread with 3+ armor with your 0 AP boltguns. The rest of my list thanks you, especially the DC. This is the same crazy logic that implies that in their current incarnation, MCs are somehow vulnerable to small arms. They aren't.

Naaris wrote:
Saves will be on Hits.

Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

Any other way is too powerful.

First, you realize due to the commutative law of multiplication, that it is literally the same mathematical outcome. Second holy RNG, "do I take six wounds or none, it's all decided by a single roll", you are thinking of making six saves at once, I'm thinking of failing six saves at the same time. It all washes out at the end but saves vs hits will be much lumpier, and lumpy RNG ruins the player experience.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Exactly as terrible as I expected, this is gak

What's wrong with the rules ?

 Marmatag wrote:

Naaris wrote:
Saves will be on Hits.

Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

Any other way is too powerful.

Wow I really hope you're wrong. This would be terrible.

You should have the opportunity to save all the wounds.

Why would you want to save on the wounds? I mean if a weapon negates your saves then you wouldn't get those saves.

If the game is purported to be about a smoother and faster playing experience, then why would you take saves on the number of wounds?

For example a Fire Dragon squad, lands 4 out of 5 hits. If you're in cover you get 4 cover saves instead of 4D6 (maybe 15) cover saves? If your not in cover 4 models will die because Melta will have at least a -4 to armor saves.

You see how crazy that becomes?

 godardc wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Exactly as terrible as I expected, this is gak

What's wrong with the rules ?

Low AP values, flamers that can only hit a guy at worst (2D3 or 3D2 would have been a lot better)

I'm a little worried for Guilliman... hoping there's a "only take one wound" or "halve wounds taken" or "hide in a squad" or "roll an extra save" proviso still for big guys

Otherwise S9 -3 lascannon hits BigRG... his 2+ is a 5+ and then fails taking 3.5 wounds on average... seems like he'd die fast... those 9 wounds don't seem so great

4 SM devastators firing for 2 turns or 8 firing in the same turn (hardly a vast thing to come up with) = 8 shots, 5.3 hits, 4.41 saves needed, 3.67 failed saves for an average of 12.86 wounds... so if he's not able to mitigate damage or hide in another unit or reroll (and I'm assuming we can do that with him) those 9 wounds could fade fast... of course a reroll or a FNP or allocate to squad member could make him and similar profiles into true monsters... any news on independent characters or sacrificial meat shields yet?

It's GW. They're not going to put that much thought into it. D6 flamer hits is acceptable, which is all they are going for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:
I'm a little worried for Guilliman... hoping there's a "only take one wound" or "halve wounds taken" or "hide in a squad" or "roll an extra save" proviso still for big guys

Otherwise S9 -3 lascannon hits BigRG... his 2+ is a 5+ and then fails taking 3.5 wounds on average... seems like he'd die fast... those 9 wounds don't seem so great

4 SM devastators firing for 2 turns or 8 firing in the same turn (hardly a vast thing to come up with) = 8 shots, 5.3 hits, 4.41 saves needed, 3.67 failed saves for an average of 12.86 wounds... so if he's not able to mitigate damage or hide in another unit or reroll (and I'm assuming we can do that with him) those 9 wounds could fade fast... of course a reroll or a FNP or allocate to squad member could make him and similar profiles into true monsters... any news on independent characters or sacrificial meat shields yet?

Lascannons should kill things really dead like they did in 2nd. He should die fast to direct hits from anti-tank guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Exactly as terrible as I expected, this is gak

What's wrong with the rules ?

Low AP values, flamers that can only hit a guy at worst (2D3 or 3D2 would have been a lot better)

AP values need to be low or you get 2nd ed. Feth that. -3 save shuriken cannons?

Mhmm, in all fairness multi wound on hits is pretty cool, I'll miss instant death, but if it means I can finally blast those silly people walking towards my artillery with said artillery, I'll have a small measure of comfort.

Removal of templates reminds me of Cityfight, which had a lot of things going for it. IMO templates are fun, but just rolling for it is so much faster. Thumbs up.

As for Save Modifiers, it's all in the implementation of them along with terrain rules, unit stats, etc. It can be great or it can be mush.

Hey maybe the baleflamer won't be an auto take on helldrakes now. I'm down for some variety.

Flamer templates were fun, but it was super binary. Either you did nothing all game or you wiped out over half their unit. I'm cautiously optimistic how they will play out now.

Martel732 wrote:
Go ahead. Shoot my T7 dread with 3+ armor with your 0 AP boltguns. The rest of my list thanks you, especially the DC. This is the same crazy logic that implies that in their current incarnation, MCs are somehow vulnerable to small arms. They aren't.

I know I've been one of the folks arguing that small arms were of some use against MCs before, but yes, absolutely, this, to the max.

Dreads may die to bolters once in a blue moon, but that won't be the usual trick. Nah, it'll be a beat-up Dread, down to its last wound, finally getting brought down by a full squad of Chaos Marines double-tapping - when most of the real damage was done in melee by a Helbrute or in shooting by a Havoc squad with multimeltas.

Martel732 wrote:
Go ahead. Shoot my T7 dread with 3+ armor with your 0 AP boltguns. The rest of my list thanks you, especially the DC. This is the same crazy logic that implies that in their current incarnation, MCs are somehow vulnerable to small arms. They aren't.

Martel is being positive about new rules, this is a red letter day indeed

 Lobukia wrote:
I'm a little worried for Guilliman... hoping there's a "only take one wound" or "halve wounds taken" or "hide in a squad" or "roll an extra save" proviso still for big guys

Otherwise S9 -3 lascannon hits BigRG... his 2+ is a 5+ and then fails taking 3.5 wounds on average... seems like he'd die fast... those 9 wounds don't seem so great

4 SM devastators firing for 2 turns or 8 firing in the same turn (hardly a vast thing to come up with) = 8 shots, 5.3 hits, 4.41 saves needed, 3.67 failed saves for an average of 12.86 wounds... so if he's not able to mitigate damage or hide in another unit or reroll (and I'm assuming we can do that with him) those 9 wounds could fade fast... of course a reroll or a FNP or allocate to squad member could make him and similar profiles into true monsters... any news on independent characters or sacrificial meat shields yet?

Undoubtedly units that were once GC or LOW or SHV will have special rules like - Regardless of enemy WS or special rules, this model can only be hit on 4+ or 5+

Also the game is supposed to have a keyword system. You could see something like - This model cannot be wounded by Infantry in CC.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Mhmm, in all fairness multi wound on hits is pretty cool, I'll miss instant death, but if it means I can finally blast those silly people walking towards my artillery with said artillery, I'll have a small measure of comfort.

Instant death is a crap mechanic, because MCs are basically immune. A demolisher cannon doing one wound to an MC is insane. And the mechanic upon which all monster mash lists are built: unreasonable durability for the points.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Mhmm, in all fairness multi wound on hits is pretty cool, I'll miss instant death, but if it means I can finally blast those silly people walking towards my artillery with said artillery, I'll have a small measure of comfort.

I'm really happy with mutli wounds too, it was really lacking in 7th ed.
I agree with low ap and the stupid flamer burning only 1 guy, but I think those are just details and, overall, it will be better.

@Martel732:

Boltguns will not destroy a Dread on their own and have to rely on heavy weapons like Lascannons. But they can still threaten a badly damaged Dread. That´s a thing that was impossible in former editions of the game. Your opponent will therefore be more cautious in the way he maneuvers the Dread around the battlefield. So, my point still stands: Dreads are in a worse position than before.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Go ahead. Shoot my T7 dread with 3+ armor with your 0 AP boltguns. The rest of my list thanks you, especially the DC. This is the same crazy logic that implies that in their current incarnation, MCs are somehow vulnerable to small arms. They aren't.

Martel is being positive about new rules, this is a red letter day indeed

Assuming these are real, it looks like they are keeping the AP in check. But watch Eldar be full of -3 to -8 AP weapons. LOLZ we are Eldar, your armorz means nothing to us!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
@Martel732:

Boltguns will not destroy a Dread on their own and have to rely on heavy weapons like Lascannons. But they can still threaten a badly damaged Dread. That´s a thing that was impossible in former editions of the game. Your opponent will therefore be more cautious in the way he maneuvers the Dread around the battlefield. So, my point still stands: Dreads are in a worse position than before.

I completely disagree. No vehicle damage table, or at least it shares one with MCs. No explodes results, either. That's a huge win. At least now we can have a badly damaged dreadnought instead of it being alive or hull pointed out.

 Strg Alt wrote:
@Martel732:

Boltguns will not destroy a Dread on their own and have to rely on heavy weapons like Lascannons. But they can still threaten a badly damaged Dread. That´s a thing that was impossible in former editions of the game. Your opponent will therefore be more cautious in the way he maneuvers the Dread around the battlefield. So, my point still stands: Dreads are in a worse position than before.

I mean you're wounding it on 6s, you'd need a good amount of boltguns.

Those are all basically wasted shots, because you could have been wounding other units on 3s or 4s. The same logic applies now; there's no reason to shoot small arms are Riptides when you can shoot them at the pathfinders. It doesn't matter that you can, *in theory*, hurt the riptide.

 Strg Alt wrote:
@Martel732:

Boltguns will not destroy a Dread on their own and have to rely on heavy weapons like Lascannons. But they can still threaten a badly damaged Dread. That´s a thing that was impossible in former editions of the game. Your opponent will therefore be more cautious in the way he maneuvers the Dread around the battlefield. So, my point still stands: Dreads are in a worse position than before.

In former editions you could boltgun a Dread in the back and kill it.

I can't say they're in a worse position now since I haven't seen all the rules, but on the outset it looks like it would take at least two successful Lascannon shots to kill it, which seems fine.

I'm not worried about flamers at all, I'm going to shove them in my list and burn gak down. A land speeder with two HF is a 55 point model with the chance to cause up to 12 automatic hits. Edit: on ONE model!

Very happy with the design choices for these weapons. If Bolters had a Rend value, there would be far too many weapons in the game that ignored armor and made armor saves really ineffective. Also like that Lascannons might actually have a role vs. tanks and monsters now.

 Grimgold wrote:

Naaris wrote:
Saves will be on Hits.

Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

Any other way is too powerful.

First, you realize due to the commutative law of multiplication, that it is literally the same mathematical outcome. Second holy RNG, "do I take six wounds or none, it's all decided by a single roll", you are thinking of making six saves at once, I'm thinking of failing six saves at the same time. It all washes out at the end but saves vs hits will be much lumpier, and lumpy RNG ruins the player experience.

Not really, it mostly makes things more dramatic. The thing is people keep thinking about it as 'oh but MAH UNITS!' when that's not it. When a D6 damage weapon hits you you naturally assume whatever it hits dies so it's not that big of a deal when it does and it's pretty nifty for you when it doesn't. It's actually the firer who will get more(but not gamebreakingly more) disappointed in the roll.

@Martel732:
If there is a Dread limping around with just a few wounds left, it is sensible to shoot it with your Tactical Squad. Keep in mind that you also have a heavy & special weapon (Melta or Plasma) in your unit. Even your Sgt. could wield a Plasma Pistol or Kombi-Weapon. Those Bolter shots could just score that critical wound you need to get the job done.

 Strg Alt wrote:
@Martel732:

Boltguns will not destroy a Dread on their own and have to rely on heavy weapons like Lascannons. But they can still threaten a badly damaged Dread. That´s a thing that was impossible in former editions of the game. Your opponent will therefore be more cautious in the way he maneuvers the Dread around the battlefield. So, my point still stands: Dreads are in a worse position than before.

Dreads couldn't possibly be in a worse position. They were made out of tissue paper. You're looking at super high end and super low end but think about S6-S7, which is ACTUALLY why dreads sucked. shooting a scatterlaser at a dreadnought now is exactly like trying to kill a squad of marines with lasguns. And as for special weapons, those 1-shot dreads pretty consistently anyway. If you had a marine squad with a melta you were pretty confident they'd pop a full hp dread so that's a terrible example.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Exactly as terrible as I expected, this is gak

What's wrong with the rules ?

Low AP values, flamers that can only hit a guy at worst (2D3 or 3D2 would have been a lot better)

No, you're confused between weapons which make DX attacks and weapons which cause DX wounds.

A weapon like a flamer makes a DX number of attacks, which then have to roll to hit(or autohit for a flamer). Weapons which cause DX wounds roll to hit and wound as normal, and you take saves vs each wound caused. However, then if any saves are failed vs this type of weapon, the single unsaved wound multiplies into DX wounds as specified by the weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
@Martel732:

Boltguns will not destroy a Dread on their own and have to rely on heavy weapons like Lascannons. But they can still threaten a badly damaged Dread. That´s a thing that was impossible in former editions of the game. Your opponent will therefore be more cautious in the way he maneuvers the Dread around the battlefield. So, my point still stands: Dreads are in a worse position than before.

Dreads couldn't possibly be in a worse position. They were made out of tissue paper. You're looking at super high end and super low end but think about S6-S7, which is ACTUALLY why dreads sucked. shooting a scatterlaser at a dreadnought now is exactly like trying to kill a squad of marines with lasguns.

That seems like a good change. At least the Dreadnought gets a save vs those attacks. And they're going to need 4s and 5s to wound anyway. So they're less effective than they were previously.

Plus remember that there will be modifiers to your hit rolls now. A guy whose staline says 3+ to hit might often find himself only hitting on 4s most of the time.

 Strg Alt wrote:
@Martel732:
If there is a Dread limping around with just a few wounds left, it is sensible to shoot it with your Tactical Squad. Keep in mind that you also have a heavy & special weapon (Melta or Plasma) in your unit. Even your Sgt. could wield a Plasma Pistol or Kombi-Weapon. Those Bolter shots could just score that critical wound you need to get the job done.

Maybe. Maybe not. But I'll take my chances there in exchange for not automatically dying vs S 6/7 shooting.

Martel732 wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Mhmm, in all fairness multi wound on hits is pretty cool, I'll miss instant death, but if it means I can finally blast those silly people walking towards my artillery with said artillery, I'll have a small measure of comfort.

Instant death is a crap mechanic, because MCs are basically immune. A demolisher cannon doing one wound to an MC is insane. And the mechanic upon which all monster mash lists are built: unreasonable durability for the points.

Yup, Multiple wounds is always better. Now, my lascannon auto does 4 wounds to a T4 model with 4 wounds, but only does one to a T5 model with 4 wounds.

Breng77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Mhmm, in all fairness multi wound on hits is pretty cool, I'll miss instant death, but if it means I can finally blast those silly people walking towards my artillery with said artillery, I'll have a small measure of comfort.

Instant death is a crap mechanic, because MCs are basically immune. A demolisher cannon doing one wound to an MC is insane. And the mechanic upon which all monster mash lists are built: unreasonable durability for the points.

Yup, Multiple wounds is always better. Now, my lascannon auto does 4 wounds to a T4 model with 4 wounds, but only does one to a T5 model with 4 wounds.

The magical T5/T6 barriers basically drove all list building decisions in 7th ed and 6th ed. Why are bikes so much better than jump packs? T5, largely. Why are TWC so much more survivable than Nobz? T5 is a big reason. T5 makes standard heavy weapons anywhere from half as effective to a fourth or worse.

@Martel732:
You are right. Glancing Dreads reliably to Death with mulitshot weapons (S6/S7) is not an option for now. But the weapon profiles of those Scatter Lasers and Shuriken Cannons are not published, yet. We will have to wait and see.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Exactly as terrible as I expected, this is gak

What's wrong with the rules ?

Low AP values, flamers that can only hit a guy at worst (2D3 or 3D2 would have been a lot better)

No, you're confused between weapons which make DX attacks and weapons which cause DX wounds.

A weapon like a flamer makes a DX number of attacks, which then have to roll to hit(or autohit for a flamer). Weapons which cause DX wounds roll to hit and wound as normal, and you take saves vs each wound caused. However, then if any saves are failed vs this type of weapon, the single unsaved wound multiplies into DX wounds as specified by the weapon.

I know how it works, it should make 2D3 attacks or 3D2, it would give out a much better potential and compensates for taking away its AP and template.

The SOB and IG thank you GW

 Strg Alt wrote:
@Martel732:
You are right. Glancing Dreads reliably to Death with mulitshot weapons (S6/S7) is not an option for now. But the weapon profiles of those Scatter Lasers and Shuriken Cannons are not published, yet. We will have to wait and see.

With any luck, scatterlasers get an AP of +1, as they deserve.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
The SOB and IG thank you GW

I certainly am not.

I use almost as many flamers as the Sisters in some of my lists. I think it's a sidegrade more than anything else. There will be some games the rolls work out, and some where they won't. Welcome to GW. I'll take that over setting up vs Tau and losing. Assuming they fix that.

I hope that this is a trend of there being far less AP weapons in this edition. AP 2 or 3 spam is silly currently.

The current game definitely has too much AP2 and not enough AP 3.

To you, maybe, I think its fine the way it is.

But I am afraid GW's gonna fulfill your hopes, unfortunately. Wonder what's gonna make the Stormtroopers worthwhile now.

 Bobthehero wrote:
To you, maybe, I think its fine the way it is.

But I am afraid GW's gonna fulfill your hopes, unfortunately. Wonder what's gonna make the Stormtroopers worthwhile now.

What part do you think is fine, exactly? Templates? Yes, templates are mostly fine, but they are also mostly fine as a D6 roll. Since that's about what they cover anyway in the general case. Sometimes you get more, sometimes you get less.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
The SOB and IG thank you GW

I certainly am not.

That is some grade "A" Heresy right there.

Martel732 wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
To you, maybe, I think its fine the way it is.

But I am afraid GW's gonna fulfill your hopes, unfortunately. Wonder what's gonna make the Stormtroopers worthwhile now.

What part do you think is fine, exactly? Templates? Yes, templates are mostly fine, but they are also mostly fine as a D6 roll. Since that's about what they cover anyway in the general case. Sometimes you get more, sometimes you get less.

The few AP 3 small arms we had were pretty nice (inferno bolters, sternguard with the right bullet, hotshots, anything I missed?) the tank weapons able to bypass infantry armor is more than fine. As for templates, the people I played rarely bothered spacing out to that 2'', so I'd get more than 6 hits.

Too much AP 2 and not enough AP 3. That's a big reason terminators suck currently. That, and stormbolters being useless. MCs have Toughness on top of 2+ armor.

Martel732 wrote:
I use almost as many flamers as the Sisters in some of my lists. I think it's a sidegrade more than anything else. There will be some games the rolls work out, and some where they won't. Welcome to GW. I'll take that over setting up vs Tau and losing. Assuming they fix that.

Yeah, significantly better against single monsters, somewhat better against small, spaced out units, worse against big horde units. It's also just as good at max range as it is up close, unlike the template flamer, and you don't have to worry about positioning within a squad, but possibly worse when it comes to cover. Also, we don't yet know what's going on with overwatch.

Bolters might work for finishing off a damaged dreadnought, but with degrading stats a severely damaged dreadnought might be not be worth shooting at compared to other targets that are available.

So, because now they can be a bit lazy you are mad?

 KingGarland wrote:
One thing I noticed is that the boltgun is listed as a rapid fire 1 type weapon. Rapid fires number of shot was always fixed before but I wonder what the number means. My guess is the number is the number of shots at max range and +1 at half range.

You're looking at it without really visualizing a statline.

Rapid Fire is the type of weapon it is.
1 is the number of attacks that someone makes while using that weapon.

Rapid Fire, most likely, is going to have a special rule where if a model remains stationary or sacrifices their movement/close combat or whatever they get to make additional attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:
To you, maybe, I think its fine the way it is.

But I am afraid GW's gonna fulfill your hopes, unfortunately. Wonder what's gonna make the Stormtroopers worthwhile now.

Infiltration, weird deployment mechanics, a better than Guardsman statline, any number of things really.

But let's not kid ourselves. Stormtroopers weren't worthwhile before. A specific kind of Stormtrooper build was--the kamikaze.

Conscript hordes are going to be so hard to kill lol

Also, special weapons teams with three flamers... that could get messy.

Kind of wish the Bolt Gun had some sort of stat representing its ability to pen body armor... but oh well.

Stormtroopers were barely worthwhile now, make their gun worse on any targets except Terminators and you'll be left with deepstriking Veterans. Yay.

Edit: Same for the 1k Sons, really. Sternguards are going to be fine because of their combi-weapons and alternative ammo.

Have we seen the stats on Hellguns?

Oh right. No. We haven't.

Well they have less AP than lascannon in current 40k, I think its safe to assume its going to be the same in 8th.

I am certainly not holding my breath for anything good.

ERJAK wrote:


Not really, it mostly makes things more dramatic. The thing is people keep thinking about it as 'oh but MAH UNITS!' when that's not it. When a D6 damage weapon hits you naturally assume whatever it hits dies so it's not that big of a deal when it does and it's pretty nifty for you when it doesn't. It's actually the firer who will get more(but not gamebreakingly more) disappointed in the roll.

Do you also want to just roll one die to determine if the entire unit hits or misses because it makes things more dramatic?

Kanluwen wrote:

 KingGarland wrote:
One thing I noticed is that the boltgun is listed as a rapid fire 1 type weapon. Rapid fires number of shot was always fixed before but I wonder what the number means. My guess is the number is the number of shots at max range and +1 at half range.

You're looking at it without really visualizing a statline.

Rapid Fire is the type of weapon it is.
1 is the number of attacks that someone makes while using that weapon.

Rapid Fire, most likely, is going to have a special rule where if a model remains stationary or sacrifices their movement/close combat or whatever they get to make additional attacks.

Or, as now, final shots are based on range rather than unit actions.

Welp, Marines are set at Morale 7. Sooo, there go IG after the first two casualties.

 Marmatag wrote:

Naaris wrote:
Saves will be on Hits.
Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.
Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
you don't save that shot and it does d6 wounds.
Any other way is too powerful.

Wow I really hope you're wrong. This would be terrible.
You should have the opportunity to save all the wounds.

I think they are trying to have some "reality" to how things work.
Lascannon fires one shot and hits, it potentially causes a huge hole in target, REALLY tough enough to resist?
No? Takes a bunch of wounds (big hole in target...).
Plus, performing a bunch of opposing rolls for every wound would bog the game down terribly.
1 hit, 1 roll to wound, one armor save (if applicable, like if lascannon shifts it to nothing).
I suppose after all that you then roll to see how many wounds go in.
Multi-hit & multi wound attacks could become quite the nail biter.

Funny, Bolt Action has no armor, it just uses toughness as the sole mechanic a model lives or dies by.
Though if we started adding "pins" to squads and models that could get ugly so I hope 8th is the best of both worlds.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Welp, Marines are set at Morale 7. Sooo, there go IG after the first two casualties.

Really lookin' to jerk that knee at any new info aren't you?

But yeah we don't know how well hellguns will work yet, or even if they'll still be costed well enough. Storm trooper types just tend to be overcosted in general to pay for that AP3 (Inferno guns are in the same boat).

I'll be interested to see how many 'universal special rules' (whatever they may be called) exist for weapons, or if most of them are going to look like what we saw today. Obviously weapon types like Heavy and Assault still exist, so things like Armorbane (in a modified form) and the like might still be around. Or they might not, and all of a weapon's special rules will be spelled out in the profile.

I hope the added strength / wounds / armor shift will be enough to cool down a large number of special rules.
The REAL question is when they go to assign points values.
Luckily, a model's stats and it's weapon stats are remarkably similar.
You could almost make a formula for points value... but no, that would be madness!

All I know is that we need a much smaller pool of USR this time around

 Talizvar wrote:
I hope the added strength / wounds / armor shift will be enough to cool down a large number of special rules.
The REAL question is when they go to assign points values.
Luckily, a model's stats and it's weapon stats are remarkably similar.
You could almost make a formula for points value... but no, that would be madness!

I can actually see an expansion of special rules instead of a contraction. We'll have to see, because it could go either way.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Welp, Marines are set at Morale 7. Sooo, there go IG after the first two casualties.

Commisars
Regimental/Platoon standards
Priests

All likely to reduce any impact of leadership issues.

Secondly, what on earth is shooting your IG that's only causing 2 casualties?
Because in my experience two casualties for guardsmen is a miracle....

Guardsman probably won't have a save to reflect this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Welp, Marines are set at Morale 7. Sooo, there go IG after the first two casualties.

That is cute, you are assuming that morale works the same in 8th as it does in 7th.

The flamer changes are actually bigger than discussed so far. It seems like the streamlining is clearly evident... flamers have just the one special rule, so no more Ignores Cover (which was excellent against Jinking bikes), no more hitting every level of a building (lovely with Ignores Cover), no more ruining open-topped vehicles (bring your DE transports right over here), and no more burning down a model or two when Charged (depending on whether Overwatch is still a thing). All of those were aspects of flamers I used regularly and will miss at least a little, if just for reasons of realism and game texture and maybe a little competitive edge. That's coming from a SoB player.

That said, everything I've seen so far seems like a reasonable price to pay for faster, more balanced games.

Essentially, you have to cause 2 casualties to make marines run. And more makes them more likely. Seems pretty harsh.

Guardsmen will probably be something like 5. They'll be taking casualties left and right, which makes sense I guess, but it could be a little unbalanced.

Am I like the only person who thinks the new weapon stats for the Flamer and Bolter are complete trash? I feel like I'm drowning in a sea of "I don't like this, but whatever..."

Flamer: Is now an Orky random pistol with worse range than a pistol. It shoots a stream of splashing liquid fire, but it might only wound 1 person - teehee! Or it might wound 6 - big money! Oh wait, a template could hit entire units and multiple units/vehicles if you played and positioned well. It's no longer a unique weapon other than being LULZ RANDOM. And yes, it is better against single models. But that's not what a crowd control weapon like a FLAMETHROWER is for; it's not supposed to be thought of as an 8" Lascannon which is what people think it is now.

Bolter: No AP... What? I mean I know the game can't always adhere to fluff, but seriously... While there's no info out, I think we can safely assume a Lasgun is weaker than a Bolter (I hope...). And a Lasgun is probably S3 as normal with no AP, because even a "mighty" Bolter no longer has AP. So a Bolter is just marginally better than a Lasgun by +1S. And I think we can also assume an Ork Slugga, for example, is likely S4 AP0, so it's identical to a Bolter in terms of power. I understand this allows soft armies to get saves, but you shouldn't get a save against an armor-piercing rocket if you're not in at least power armor... It just makes no sense and fills me with dissonance. It feels counter-intuitive and wrong. "The might Boltgun of the Adeptus Astartes, the Angels of Death! Behold it's power to be slightly better than a Flashlight and equaled only a rusty Ork grunt's pistol!"

I have no issues with the LasCannon. It functions as intended by blowing a huge hole in a single target and burning through most armor.

I know how this is going to play out for me.
D6 hits from a Flamer means one hit.

HaussVonHorne wrote:
Am I like the only person who thinks the new weapon stats for the Flamer and Bolter are complete trash? I feel like I'm drowning in a sea of "I don't like this, but whatever..."

Flamer: Is now an Orky random pistol with worse range than a pistol. It shoots a stream of splashing liquid fire, but it might only wound 1 person - teehee! Or it might wound 6 - big money! Oh wait, a template could hit entire units and multiple units/vehicles if you played and positioned well. It's no longer a unique weapon other than being LULZ RANDOM. And yes, it is better against single models. But that's not what a crowd control weapon like a FLAMETHROWER is for; it's not supposed to be thought of as an 8" Lascannon which is what people think it is now.

Bolter: No AP... What? I mean I know the game can't always adhere to fluff, but seriously... While there's no info out, I think we can safely assume a Lasgun is weaker than a Bolter (I hope...). And a Lasgun is probably S3 as normal with no AP, because even a "mighty" Bolter no longer has AP. So a Bolter is just marginally better than a Lasgun by +1S. And I think we can also assume an Ork Slugga, for example, is likely S4 AP0, so it's identical to a Bolter in terms of power. I understand this allows soft armies to get saves, but you shouldn't get a save against an armor-piercing rocket... It just makes no sense and fills me with dissonance. It feels counter-intuitive and wrong. "The might Boltgun of the Adeptus Astartes, the Angels of Death! Behold it's power to be slightly better than a Flashlight and equaled only a rusty Ork grunt's pistol!"

I have no issues with the LasCannon. It functions as intended by blowing a huge hole in a single target and burning through most armor.

You are assuming that guardsman etc still have saves

You also haven't seen most of the balancing, so it might not be trash when compared with everything else.

Why would you assume Guardsmen wont have saves?

I'm totally OK with flamers being a 5 point, 8" lascannon.

I'm also totally OK with all basic troop weapons not having a save modifier.

HaussVonHorne wrote:

Bolter: No AP... What? I mean I know the game can't always adhere to fluff, but seriously... While there's no info out, I think we can safely assume a Lasgun is weaker than a Bolter (I hope...). And a Lasgun is probably S3 as normal with no AP, because even a "mighty" Bolter no longer has AP. So a Bolter is just marginally better than a Lasgun by +1S. And I think we can also assume an Ork Slugga, for example, is likely S4 AP0, so it's identical to a Bolter in terms of power. I understand this allows soft armies to get saves, but you shouldn't get a save against an armor-piercing rocket... It just makes no sense and fills me with dissonance. It feels counter-intuitive and wrong. "The might Boltgun of the Adeptus Astartes, the Angels of Death! Behold it's power to be slightly better than a Flashlight and equaled only a rusty Ork grunt's pistol!"

I have no issues with the LasCannon. It functions as intended by blowing a huge hole in a single target and burning through most armor.

As one of the most common basic infantry weapons in the galaxy would it not make sense that everyone wears armour that could protect them from it?

I wouldn't be suprised to see the Pulse rifle with a -1 ASM.

 Bobthehero wrote:
I wouldn't be suprised to see the Pulse rifle with a -1 ASM.

That would be pretty brutal.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724444.page

Most likely this is the morale effects.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
I wouldn't be suprised to see the Pulse rifle with a -1 ASM.

That would be pretty brutal.

Yeah, well that's Tau shooting for you.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Why would you assume Guardsmen wont have saves?

I am not assuming, but it is a possibility, and looking at the profiles we have I wouldn't be surprised at all.

I guess at this point it would just be another nail in the coffin for me, really not looking forward to 8th.

 Bobthehero wrote:
I guess at this point it would just be another nail in the coffin for me, really not looking forward to 8th.

Give it a try first. It sounds like exciting times.

For you maybe, but everything I heard so far, except for high strenght weapons doing more than a wound worth of damage, seems to be a kick in the face of the factions I play, so forgive me for have no enthusiasm for the game whatsoever.

HaussVonHorne wrote:
Bolter: No AP... What? I mean I know the game can't always adhere to fluff, but seriously... While there's no info out, I think we can safely assume a Lasgun is weaker than a Bolter (I hope...). And a Lasgun is probably S3 as normal with no AP, because even a "mighty" Bolter no longer has AP. So a Bolter is just marginally better than a Lasgun by +1S. And I think we can also assume an Ork Slugga, for example, is likely S4 AP0, so it's identical to a Bolter in terms of power. I understand this allows soft armies to get saves, but you shouldn't get a save against an armor-piercing rocket if you're not in at least power armor... It just makes no sense and fills me with dissonance. It feels counter-intuitive and wrong. "The might Boltgun of the Adeptus Astartes, the Angels of Death! Behold it's power to be slightly better than a Flashlight and equaled only a rusty Ork grunt's pistol!"

It's hard to represent a lot of the detail on the tabletop. A difference of 1 Str is not insignificant. I was thinking they might be giving AP 5 weapons a -1 modifier, but also increasing the armor saves, but it looks like they opted to keep the armor saves the same and only give out modifiers to more powerful weapons.

I'm very much looking forward to it. It sounds like there will be a lot more granularity, while at the same time the rules will be much, much simpler and quicker to play. Probably the best part is that they're starting from a clean slate in terms of unit balance for the first time since 3rd edition.

Jbz` wrote:
As one of the most common basic infantry weapons in the galaxy would it not make sense that everyone wears armour that could protect them from it?

No it does not, because then most basic infantry could not move due to the weight/size and cost of the armor. And there are more lasguns and ork sluggas (because there's more armed Guard and orks) in the galaxy to overshadow every boltgun ever made. 7.62 rifles are the most common infantry weapon on earth, so why doesn't everyone just wear a bomb defuser full-body armor suit (assuming those can even stop direct bullets)?

HaussVonHorne wrote:

Jbz` wrote:
As one of the most common basic infantry weapons in the galaxy would it not make sense that everyone wears armour that could protect them from it?

No it does not, because then most basic infantry could not move due to the weight/size and cost of the armor. And there are more lasguns and ork sluggas (because there's more armed Guard and orks) in the galaxy to overshadow every boltgun ever made. 7.62 rifles are the most common infantry weapon on earth, so why doesn't everyone just wear a bomb defuser full-body armor suit (assuming those can even stop direct bullets)?

IRL body armor is rated by the NIJ certification system. Soldiers and marines wear level IV rated ceramic plates that are designed to stop multiple 7.62x51 rounds, which are significantly more powerful than 7.62x39 rounds fired by your average AK. No EOD Michelin Man suit required. So, at least in our world, the average soldier does indeed wear body armor designed to exceed the threat of the average infantry round.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
It's hard to represent a lot of the detail on the tabletop. A difference of 1 Str is not insignificant. I was thinking they might be giving AP 5 weapons a -1 modifier, but also increasing the armor saves, but it looks like they opted to keep the armor saves the same and only give out modifiers to more powerful weapons.

It's hard to accurately represent all the fluff, of course. But just saying through the stats that "Bolts cannot penetrate a Guardsman's flak vest," is just denying the fluff exists at all. The fluff is what sells the game (you can disagree if you want), so making people scratch their heads, especially new players, at "Why is this so-called awesome gun barely better than or identical to all other guns" isn't good. And a difference of +/-S1 is WAY more insignificant in 8th since GW has stated any model can harm any other model. Because it's a d6 system, your maximum threshold to wound anything is a 6+ and the maximum save is 2+ of any type. So the difference of +/-S1 does not matter as much when any gun can wound anything on a 6+. Yes, that's making assumptions, but how else can you interpret it? A d6 only has 1-6 on it...

A single space marine not being able to kill twenty fully armed guardsmen with his bare hands isn't fluffy either. You have to make some sacrifices when translating fluff to a game, otherwise marine armies would be too small to be interesting.

Depends on the Guardsmen, there's plenty of example of Marines getting killed by relatively few Guardsmen.

 Bobthehero wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
To you, maybe, I think its fine the way it is.

But I am afraid GW's gonna fulfill your hopes, unfortunately. Wonder what's gonna make the Stormtroopers worthwhile now.

What part do you think is fine, exactly? Templates? Yes, templates are mostly fine, but they are also mostly fine as a D6 roll. Since that's about what they cover anyway in the general case. Sometimes you get more, sometimes you get less.

The few AP 3 small arms we had were pretty nice (inferno bolters, sternguard with the right bullet, hotshots, anything I missed?) the tank weapons able to bypass infantry armor is more than fine. As for templates, the people I played rarely bothered spacing out to that 2'', so I'd get more than 6 hits.

So your oppoents being bad and not spacing things out is a reason to hate what is actually a reasonable replacement?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also people paid the premium for the AP3 when it was almost never Ignores Cover, meaning those points partly go to waste.

HaussVonHorne wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
It's hard to represent a lot of the detail on the tabletop. A difference of 1 Str is not insignificant. I was thinking they might be giving AP 5 weapons a -1 modifier, but also increasing the armor saves, but it looks like they opted to keep the armor saves the same and only give out modifiers to more powerful weapons.

It's hard to accurately represent all the fluff, of course. But just saying through the stats that "Bolts cannot penetrate a Guardsman's flak vest," is just denying the fluff exists at all. The fluff is what sells the game (you can disagree if you want), so making people scratch their heads, especially new players, at "Why is this so-called awesome gun barely better than or identical to all other guns" isn't good. And a difference of +/-S1 is WAY more insignificant in 8th since GW has stated any model can harm any other model. Because it's a d6 system, your maximum threshold to wound anything is a 6+ and the maximum save is 2+ of any type. So the difference of +/-S1 does not matter as much when any gun can wound anything on a 6+. Yes, that's making assumptions, but how else can you interpret it? A d6 only has 1-6 on it...

I'm not sure. I mean, a Space Marine is incredibly strong and tough compared to a normal human, way beyond the strongest and toughest humans on real life Earth. How is it represented? By giving them +1 Strength and Toughness compared to a normal human. A bolter is a very powerful weapon, as far as small arms go. How is it represented? By giving it +1 Strength compared to a normal Guardsman's lasgun (lasguns not being weak in most of the fluff I read).

I think it's also worth noting that Flak Armor only saves a model 1/3 of the time. My understanding is that it is primarily to protect against shrapnel and doesn't normally stand up to direct hits from relatively powerful weapons like bolters, but it might for example stop an angled hit from being incapacitating.

It would be nice to show the extra penetrative power of boltguns, but I can see why they would choose to simplify things in games involving lots of models.

 Luciferian wrote:
IRL body armor is rated by the NIJ certification system. Soldiers and marines wear level IV rated ceramic plates that are designed to stop multiple 7.62x51 rounds, which are significantly more powerful than 7.62x39 rounds fired by your average AK. No EOD Michelin Man suit required. So, at least in our world, the average soldier does indeed wear body armor designed to exceed the threat of the average infantry round.

The "average" soldier in our world is not a U.S. or NATO soldier. There are many, many more underfunded, under-equipped soldiers than there are ones wearing modern body armor. Most soldiers (anyone with with a weapon and a cause to fight for/against) wear a cloth shirt and maybe a flak vest. This is kind of besides the point which is that most (likely 90% or more due to logistics and cost) of Imperial Guard wear just a flak vest which cannot hope to stop a bolt round. And orks might have a 1/4-1" metal plate on their chest which also won't stop a bolt round.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
to hate what is actually a reasonable replacement?

I don't find it reasonable, hence why I dislike it.

HaussVonHorne wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
IRL body armor is rated by the NIJ certification system. Soldiers and marines wear level IV rated ceramic plates that are designed to stop multiple 7.62x51 rounds, which are significantly more powerful than 7.62x39 rounds fired by your average AK. No EOD Michelin Man suit required. So, at least in our world, the average soldier does indeed wear body armor designed to exceed the threat of the average infantry round.

The "average" soldier in our world is not a U.S. or NATO soldier. There are many, many more underfunded, under-equipped soldiers than there are ones wearing modern body armor. Most soldiers (anyone with with a weapon and a cause to fight for/against) wear a cloth shirt and maybe a flak vest. This is kind of besides the point which is that most (likely 90% or more due to logistics and cost) of Imperial Guard wear just a flak vest which cannot hope to stop a bolt round. And orks might have a 1/4-1" metal plate on their chest which also won't stop a bolt round.

Which is reflected in their armor saves, so I still don't get the point.

Jbz` wrote:

HaussVonHorne wrote:

Bolter: No AP... What? I mean I know the game can't always adhere to fluff, but seriously... While there's no info out, I think we can safely assume a Lasgun is weaker than a Bolter (I hope...). And a Lasgun is probably S3 as normal with no AP, because even a "mighty" Bolter no longer has AP. So a Bolter is just marginally better than a Lasgun by +1S. And I think we can also assume an Ork Slugga, for example, is likely S4 AP0, so it's identical to a Bolter in terms of power. I understand this allows soft armies to get saves, but you shouldn't get a save against an armor-piercing rocket... It just makes no sense and fills me with dissonance. It feels counter-intuitive and wrong. "The might Boltgun of the Adeptus Astartes, the Angels of Death! Behold it's power to be slightly better than a Flashlight and equaled only a rusty Ork grunt's pistol!"

I have no issues with the LasCannon. It functions as intended by blowing a huge hole in a single target and burning through most armor.

As one of the most common basic infantry weapons in the galaxy would it not make sense that everyone wears armour that could protect them from it?

We're talking about a galaxy that puts more value on most resources than on lives.

I hope you weren't referring to the Bolter as one of the most common weapons in the galaxy.

 Bobthehero wrote:
For you maybe, but everything I heard so far, except for high strenght weapons doing more than a wound worth of damage, seems to be a kick in the face of the factions I play, so forgive me for have no enthusiasm for the game whatsoever.

how do you know what would be a kick to the faction you play? you have no idea how your faction plays, literally 0. The only people who DO know ANYTHING about how their army plays in 8th are space marines and they know 7 statlines without any context.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

I hope you weren't referring to the Bolter as one of the most common weapons in the galaxy.

One of.
Probably the 4th/5th most prevalent firearm. (Almost every AOTI faction has some access to them)

More common would obviously be Lasgun/Autogun/Shoota
maybe pulse and splinter rifles

(And three of them have similar penetrative power to boltguns)

I'm excited about this. I personally would prefer for boltguns to have a -1 rending value (going down to -5 rending for AP 1), but I can see the value of getting rid of AP 5 and 6 altogether. Overall, this is a nerf to boltguns, but a strong buff to vehicles, including rhinos.

I'm eager to see what they do to missile launchers. I suspect that the profile will be 48 inch range, S 8, -2 rending and 1d6 damage for krak, and frag will likely be S 4, -0 rending and either 1d3 or 1d6 hits for frag.

HaussVonHorne wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
IRL body armor is rated by the NIJ certification system. Soldiers and marines wear level IV rated ceramic plates that are designed to stop multiple 7.62x51 rounds, which are significantly more powerful than 7.62x39 rounds fired by your average AK. No EOD Michelin Man suit required. So, at least in our world, the average soldier does indeed wear body armor designed to exceed the threat of the average infantry round.

The "average" soldier in our world is not a U.S. or NATO soldier. There are many, many more underfunded, under-equipped soldiers than there are ones wearing modern body armor. Most soldiers (anyone with with a weapon and a cause to fight for/against) wear a cloth shirt and maybe a flak vest. This is kind of besides the point which is that most (likely 90% or more due to logistics and cost) of Imperial Guard wear just a flak vest which cannot hope to stop a bolt round. And orks might have a 1/4-1" metal plate on their chest which also won't stop a bolt round.

Lack of armor also makes them just a bit more flexible in their movement, thus they might have been clipped across the arm/leg instead of hit dead on in the head or chest, never assume that the armor save is only representing their clothing.

 Traditio wrote:
I'm excited about this. I personally would prefer for boltguns to have a -1 rending value (going down to -5 rending for AP 1), but I can see the value of getting rid of AP 5 and 6 altogether. Overall, this is a nerf to boltguns, but a strong buff to vehicles, including rhinos.

I'm eager to see what they do to missile launchers. I suspect that the profile will be 48 inch range, S 8, -2 rending and 1d6 damage for krak, and frag will likely be S 4, -0 rending and either 1d3 or 1d6 hits for frag.

My bet is that rend will cap at 4 and even then rend 4 will be EXTREMELY rare.

ERJAK wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I'm excited about this. I personally would prefer for boltguns to have a -1 rending value (going down to -5 rending for AP 1), but I can see the value of getting rid of AP 5 and 6 altogether. Overall, this is a nerf to boltguns, but a strong buff to vehicles, including rhinos.

I'm eager to see what they do to missile launchers. I suspect that the profile will be 48 inch range, S 8, -2 rending and 1d6 damage for krak, and frag will likely be S 4, -0 rending and either 1d3 or 1d6 hits for frag.

My bet is that rend will cap at 4 and even then rend 4 will be EXTREMELY rare.

Well, here's what we already know:

Lascannons (AP 2) are rend -3. Boltguns (AP 5) are rend 0.

My suspicion is that they started with AP 4 as rend -1 and worked their way down.

This is easily a buff for terminators (with respect to AP 1 and 2 weapons; though a slight nerf with respect to AP 3 and 4 weapons), which might actually be playable in this edition.

ERJAK wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
For you maybe, but everything I heard so far, except for high strenght weapons doing more than a wound worth of damage, seems to be a kick in the face of the factions I play, so forgive me for have no enthusiasm for the game whatsoever.

how do you know what would be a kick to the faction you play? you have no idea how your faction plays, literally 0. The only people who DO know ANYTHING about how their army plays in 8th are space marines and they know 7 statlines without any context.

Well I already know that blasts are worse than they were, its also a safe bet that all the stuff that was AP 3 (big crutches in my armies) is going to have at best a rend of -3 (which is... eeeeh, tolerable, I guess). There were mentions of deepstrike being limited, but it might have been just a rumour.

Man I love the amount of people that are making massive presumptions with the very little insight we have into the new rule set..

1 Factor to also think off with the theory craft.. is that Cover is apparently going to do the opposite of the AP

Bobthehero wrote:Well I already know that blasts are worse than they were, its also a safe bet that all the stuff that was AP 3 (big crutches in my armies) is going to have at best a rend of -3

Lolno.

I would expect -2 for AP 3.

-1 for AP 4, -2 for AP 3, -3 for AP 2 and -4 for AP 1.

Just a guess, but that's my suspicion.

And yes, I understand your plight, BTH.

It means that you won't be able to slaughter foot slogging marines as easily as you are now.

I'm loving this!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
Man I love the amount of people that are making massive presumptions with the very little insight we have into the new rule set..

1 Factor to also think off with the theory craft.. is that Cover is apparently going to do the opposite of the AP

I read a rumor that cover is going to be sigmarized. Basically, if all of the models are in cover/terrain, +1 to all saves.

I did say at best. I am fairly sure its going to be stuck to a pitiful -2.

It will be easier to kill Terminators, but everyone else will be a bigger pain in the rear, its not a trade I want to make, really.

 Bobthehero wrote:
I did say at best. I am fairly sure its going to be stuck to a pitiful -2.

It will be easier to kill Terminators, but everyone else will be a bigger pain in the rear, its not a trade I want to make, really.

The trade-off is that orks and imperial guardsmen are also going to be tougher, since AP 5 and 6 weapons (apparently) no longer ignore armor.

Your tanks should also be much more durable now against anything that's not a dedicated anti-tank weapon.

I don't care about my men surviving and I don't have tanks.

 Traditio wrote:
The trade-off is that orks and imperial guardsmen are also going to be tougher, since AP 5 and 6 weapons (apparently) no longer ignore armor.

Your tanks should also be much more durable now against anything that's not a dedicated anti-tank weapon.

Gotta remember Bob play DKoK, so any ruleset that isn't good for that particular army has to be bad..


But really I wouldn't be upset until you see what Spec rules FW puts out for them

Well yeah, if a ruleset makes my armies (I also have 1000pts of Stormtroopers) worse than they currently are, I am not exactly going to be jumping out of joy.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Well yeah, if a ruleset makes my armies (I also have 1000pts of Stormtroopers) worse than they currently are, I am not exactly going to be jumping out of joy.

If it's that bad, you could always proxy as basic IG?

 Traditio wrote:
I read a rumor that cover is going to be sigmarized. Basically, if all of the models are in cover/terrain, +1 to all saves.

Do you know if that's supposedly determined by MEV or by units having their bases within the border of a terrain model? Because I would really prefer the latter.

 Traditio wrote:

If it's that bad, you could always proxy as basic IG?

HERESY!

 Luciferian wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I read a rumor that cover is going to be sigmarized. Basically, if all of the models are in cover/terrain, +1 to all saves.

Do you know if that's supposedly determined by MEV or by units having their bases within the border of a terrain model? Because I would really prefer the latter.

What does MEV stand for?

Model's eye view, thought Dakka would do the fancy rollover thing but I guess I got the acronym wrong.

 Luciferian wrote:
Model's eye view, thought Dakka would do the fancy rollover thing but I guess I got the acronym wrong.

I understand now.

As far as I recall, all that the rumor said is that cover would work as in Age of Sigmar. The AoS rule reads: "If all models in a unit are within or on a terrain feature, you can add 1 to all save rolls for that unit to represent the cover they receive from the terrain. This modifier does not apply in the combat phase if the unit you are making saves for made a charge move in the same turn."

 Traditio wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Model's eye view, thought Dakka would do the fancy rollover thing but I guess I got the acronym wrong.

I understand now.

As far as I recall, all that the rumor said is that cover would work as in Age of Sigmar. The AoS rule reads: "If all models in a unit are within or on a terrain feature, you can add 1 to all save rolls for that unit to represent the cover they receive from the terrain. This modifier does not apply in the combat phase if the unit you are making saves for made a charge move in the same turn."

So that sounds like it's not model's eye view, then. I'm all for it. I can appreciate the yearning for realism in the current cover rules, but I'm definitely willing to accept an abstraction if it has basically the same results without being so subjective and drawn out.

Yeah TLOS did get annoying at time and slowed things down (the acronym you were looking for)

I personally love the overwhelming fear people have of any models on the opposing side actually getting to roll an armour save. HOW DARE THEY!?

The "sweep your grey plastic off the table with this broom" mentality of current 40K is really a turn off for a lot of people.

 Elbows wrote:
I personally love the overwhelming fear people have of any models on the opposing side actually getting to roll an armour save. HOW DARE THEY!?

The "sweep your grey plastic off the table with this broom" mentality of current 40K is really a turn off for a lot of people.

Agreed.

That's a major turn off for me with respect to 7th edition, the mentality that, in order for a unit not to be trash, it either must:

1. Be practically unkillable

or

2. Have a ridiculous damage output.

In 7th ed, there really are only two categories:

1. OP and 2. trash.

I'm hoping that 8th gives us a happy middle ground.

Yes, how dare I want to have a few units that can ignore the enemy armor save.

 Elbows wrote:
I personally love the overwhelming fear people have of any models on the opposing side actually getting to roll an armour save. HOW DARE THEY!?

The "sweep your grey plastic off the table with this broom" mentality of current 40K is really a turn off for a lot of people.

As a long time (ex-)marine player, I welcome low armour saves actually being a thing in the game. It always seemed like pointless cruft in other editions.

"Oh what's that Ork's save?"
"6+!"
"Cool, I'll just roll..."
"Woah there buddy, you don't actually roll that!"
"Why did they bother writing rules for that?"
"TRADITION!" *musical montage begins*

This opens up design space that was previously closed off almost entirely and it's a good piece of design.

I'm just wondering if IG are going back to 6+ or staying at the 5+ they were given when Flak armour was simplified for 3rd Edition. Now that a shoota wont ignore flak and a lasgun doesn't ignore [gubbinz wat orkses use for armur] there doesn't really seem to be a reason to split them (especially since I doubt frag munitions will come with an AP, thus negating the need for flak to have a special dispensation to get a 5+ versus blast attacks).

Either way, interesting times with most of the saves in the game not getting outright ignored anymore. Horde infantry should be able to stick around longer and get stuck in in larger numbers (or keep firing for longer). Even if it only results in negating 1/3rd to 1/6th of casualties, that is a pretty big deal (especially given how Battle Shock works).

 Bobthehero wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
For you maybe, but everything I heard so far, except for high strenght weapons doing more than a wound worth of damage, seems to be a kick in the face of the factions I play, so forgive me for have no enthusiasm for the game whatsoever.

how do you know what would be a kick to the faction you play? you have no idea how your faction plays, literally 0. The only people who DO know ANYTHING about how their army plays in 8th are space marines and they know 7 statlines without any context.

Well I already know that blasts are worse than they were, its also a safe bet that all the stuff that was AP 3 (big crutches in my armies) is going to have at best a rend of -3 (which is... eeeeh, tolerable, I guess). There were mentions of deepstrike being limited, but it might have been just a rumour.

You don't know ANY of that to be true, at all. You are making presumption based on a tiny tiny amount of information about 8th. For all you know the new blasts system could be a billion times more deadly than the old one. Sh*t for all you know large blasts could now be 288D6 distributed to any 3 tables within 45 miles.


The point is you are cobbeling together assumptions based on a few tidbits of 8th, some trends from 7th, and your own fears of irrelevance. You are creating an environment for yourself where you're convinced your army will be worse than it currently is when you have no f**king clue yet. You WANT to be upset so you're making yourself an echo chamber of disappointment out of nothing and it's clearly not helping you or anyone else.

Jbz` wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

I hope you weren't referring to the Bolter as one of the most common weapons in the galaxy.

One of.
Probably the 4th/5th most prevalent firearm. (Almost every AOTI faction has some access to them)

More common would obviously be Lasgun/Autogun/Shoota
maybe pulse and splinter rifles

(And three of them have similar penetrative power to boltguns)

You know Marines are outnumbered by billions to one by Guard right? That's not mentioning all the Xenos.
Even if every Guard Sergeant and above level carried a Bolt weapon they'd still be outnumbered by at least five to one by AM meat shields.

On power levels.
Ork guns are crazy powerful, Ork shooting is just crazy.
Bolter weapons are launching explosive rounds that will mess you up if they hit the ground near your feet. Being hit by one is first being impacted by a self propelled shell roughly the size of a tennis ball then having it explode, that's assuming it doesn't have the setting and velocity to drill right through you and keep travelling until it hits something that isn't squishy.

ERJAK 724417 wrote:You don't know ANY of that to be true, at all. You are making presumption based on a tiny tiny amount of information about 8th. For all you know the new blasts system could be a billion times more deadly than the old one. Sh*t for all you know large blasts could now be 288D6 distributed to any 3 tables within 45 miles.

Guy A: Alright, so I'll just move my Dire Avengers here...
Guy B: Ok, that's it for movements. Shooting phase?
Guy A: Yes, so, I'm going to use these dire avengers to...

A bell jingles as the door to the FLGS opens. A man comes rushing through the door, breathless, with a bag full of dice in hand.

New guy: WAIT! HALT THE GAME!!!!!!!!

The FLGS owner, noticing the disturbance, walks over:

FLGS owner: Can I help you?

New guy: I'm from the next town over. I drove here as fast as I can, but it was still an hour drive! I need to do this!

FLGS owner: Do what?

New guy: I'm using a Death Stroke, and it's my shooting phase.

New guy runs over to the game table and dumps the bag of dice onto said gaming table.

Guys A and B frantically begin doing calculations, rolling saves and removing models from the table...

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


You know Marines are outnumbered by billions to one by Guard right? That's not mentioning all the Xenos.
Even if every Guard Sergeant and above level carried a Bolt weapon they'd still be outnumbered by at least five to one by AM meat shields.

On power levels.
Ork guns are crazy powerful, Ork shooting is just crazy.
Bolter weapons are launching explosive rounds that will mess you up if they hit the ground near your feet. Being hit by one is first being impacted by a self propelled shell roughly the size of a tennis ball then having it explode, that's assuming it doesn't have the setting and velocity to drill right through you and keep travelling until it hits something that isn't squishy.

We know, we know. The only thing that really matters when discussing rules, however, is how well they balance being a representation of the lore with being playable and balanced. If bolters had a -1 ASM, how much would you have to adjust the points of nearly every SM unit to account for it? If we go by the fluff, one bolt should kill or disable virtually any lightly armored organic target that it impacts, along with many with even better protection. In terms of game balance that just doesn't work as a free, basic infantry weapon. And at the end of the day it doesn't matter whether or not it's one of the most common weapons in the galaxy of the 41st millennium, because it IS one of the most common weapons in the game. If not the most common.

ERJAK wrote:
You WANT to be upset so you're making yourself an echo chamber of disappointment out of nothing and it's clearly not helping you or anyone else.

Do I now? Learn something new everyday I guess

On that note:

Does everyone remember how I once made a thread suggesting that all weapons should wound, regardless of toughness or AV, on a 6?

And does everyone remember how the idea was universally reviled?

Yeah...

Funny how that works, isn't it?

 Luciferian wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


You know Marines are outnumbered by billions to one by Guard right? That's not mentioning all the Xenos.
Even if every Guard Sergeant and above level carried a Bolt weapon they'd still be outnumbered by at least five to one by AM meat shields.

On power levels.
Ork guns are crazy powerful, Ork shooting is just crazy.
Bolter weapons are launching explosive rounds that will mess you up if they hit the ground near your feet. Being hit by one is first being impacted by a self propelled shell roughly the size of a tennis ball then having it explode, that's assuming it doesn't have the setting and velocity to drill right through you and keep travelling until it hits something that isn't squishy.

We know, we know. The only thing that really matters when discussing rules, however, is how well they balance being a representation of the lore with being playable and balanced. If bolters had a -1 ASM, how much would you have to adjust the points of nearly every SM unit to account for it? If we go by the fluff, one bolt should kill or disable virtually any lightly armored organic target that it impacts, along with many with even better protection. In terms of game balance that just doesn't work as a free, basic infantry weapon. And at the end of the day it doesn't matter whether or not it's one of the most common weapons in the galaxy of the 41st millennium, because it IS one of the most common weapons in the game. If not the most common.

That is a fact - Since Space Marine vs Space Marine is the most common match type I propose that Bolt Weapons be AP3.
Space Marine killers.

 Traditio wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I'm excited about this. I personally would prefer for boltguns to have a -1 rending value (going down to -5 rending for AP 1), but I can see the value of getting rid of AP 5 and 6 altogether. Overall, this is a nerf to boltguns, but a strong buff to vehicles, including rhinos.

I'm eager to see what they do to missile launchers. I suspect that the profile will be 48 inch range, S 8, -2 rending and 1d6 damage for krak, and frag will likely be S 4, -0 rending and either 1d3 or 1d6 hits for frag.

My bet is that rend will cap at 4 and even then rend 4 will be EXTREMELY rare.

Well, here's what we already know:

Lascannons (AP 2) are rend -3. Boltguns (AP 5) are rend 0.

My suspicion is that they started with AP 4 as rend -1 and worked their way down.

This is easily a buff for terminators (with respect to AP 1 and 2 weapons; though a slight nerf with respect to AP 3 and 4 weapons), which might actually be playable in this edition.

It's not a buff to terminators durability. As you pointed out it is worse for them with ap3 and ap4 weapons. Against ap2 they will now get a 5+... With current rules they get a 5++ against ap2 anyway. With ap1 they will get a 6+... which is worse than a 5++.
Combined with this - so many more units now get a save against shots that they wouldn't have before - against so many types of weapons that terminators didnt need to worry about anyway.

Of course the rules concerning terminator armour could be massively different.

Poly Ranger wrote:

It's not a buff to terminators durability. As you pointed out it is worse for them with ap3 and ap4 weapons. Against ap2 they will now get a 5+... With current rules they get a 5++ against ap2 anyway. With ap1 they will get a 6+... which is worse than a 5++.
Combined with this - so many more units now get a save against shots that they wouldn't have before - against so many types of weapons that terminators didnt need to worry about anyway.

Of course the rules concerning terminator armour could be massively different.

Well with armour modifiers layered saves aren't so bad. So they may get to roll an invulnerable save in addition to their armour save.
(Like how Ward/Regen saves worked in WHFB)
Which so long as they don't go excessive with what they allow (Those only ever were better than a 4+ in special cases, mostly on unarmoured models) It wouldn't be too bad

Poly Ranger wrote:It's not a buff to terminators durability. As you pointed out it is worse for them with ap3 and ap4 weapons. Against ap2 they will now get a 5+... With current rules they get a 5++ against ap2 anyway. With ap1 they will get a 6+... which is worse than a 5++.
Combined with this - so many more units now get a save against shots that they wouldn't have before - against so many types of weapons that terminators didnt need to worry about anyway.

Of course the rules concerning terminator armour could be massively different.

Fair point. The only sense in which terminators would be buffed is if we get the AoS cover rules. In that case, AP 2 weapons would reduce terminators to a 5+ save, but if they're in cover, that would get bumped to a 4+.

I am interested in seeing how ubiquitous invuln saves are in 8th.

 Traditio wrote:

ERJAK 724417 wrote:You don't know ANY of that to be true, at all. You are making presumption based on a tiny tiny amount of information about 8th. For all you know the new blasts system could be a billion times more deadly than the old one. Sh*t for all you know large blasts could now be 288D6 distributed to any 3 tables within 45 miles.

Guy A: Alright, so I'll just move my Dire Avengers here...
Guy B: Ok, that's it for movements. Shooting phase?
Guy A: Yes, so, I'm going to use these dire avengers to...

A bell jingles as the door to the FLGS opens. A man comes rushing through the door, breathless, with a bag full of dice in hand.

New guy: WAIT! HALT THE GAME!!!!!!!!

The FLGS owner, noticing the disturbance, walks over:

FLGS owner: Can I help you?

New guy: I'm from the next town over. I drove here as fast as I can, but it was still an hour drive! I need to do this!

FLGS owner: Do what?

New guy: I'm using a Death Stroke, and it's my shooting phase.

New guy runs over to the game table and dumps the bag of dice onto said gaming table.

Guys A and B frantically begin doing calculations, rolling saves and removing models from the table...

Epic

Jbz` wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

It's not a buff to terminators durability. As you pointed out it is worse for them with ap3 and ap4 weapons. Against ap2 they will now get a 5+... With current rules they get a 5++ against ap2 anyway. With ap1 they will get a 6+... which is worse than a 5++.
Combined with this - so many more units now get a save against shots that they wouldn't have before - against so many types of weapons that terminators didnt need to worry about anyway.

Of course the rules concerning terminator armour could be massively different.

Well with armour modifiers layered saves aren't so bad. So they may get to roll an invulnerable save in addition to their armour save.
(Like how Ward/Regen saves worked in WHFB)
Which so long as they don't go excessive with what they allow (Those only ever were better than a 4+ in special cases, mostly on unarmoured models) It wouldn't be too bad

Yeh layered saves are dangerous ground. They would have to be very careful if they brought them in (although RP and FnP are precedents). Take an extreme example - a TH/SS BA termi squad with an attached Sanguinary Priest would require 162 bs3 lasgun shots on average to take down a single terminator if they were allowed their 3++ and FnP on top of their 2++. Even without the FnP it still requires an average of 108 lasgun shots per kill. Of course you take the median if looking at the final kill so you halve the final kill (as it's just as likely to happen with the first shot as with the 108th shot), so without FnP it would take 486 (108x4 + 54x1) bs3 lasgun shots to kill a layered save 5 man TH/SS termi squad.

 Traditio wrote:
On that note:

Does everyone remember how I once made a thread suggesting that all weapons should wound, regardless of toughness or AV, on a 6?

And does everyone remember how the idea was universally reviled?

Yeah...

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Well it's still silly. And that's not how 8E works. A 6 explodes... allowing you to go off chart. It doesn't wound, it's allowed to try.

I can't argue with that. Poly
In my head though they would not hand out overly powerful ones though.
I'd Imagine Terminator armour would give a 6+
Stormshield would be 5+
TA+SS would be a 4+

Only virtually unarmoured models (DE Archons/Succubi etc.) would have access to 2+/3+ invuns (Unless they're temporary like Ghazghkull's Waaagh invun at the moment)

And it'd be FNP/RP OR invun save (and any multi-wound attack would negat FNP/RP)

Jbz` wrote:
I can't argue with that. Poly
In my head though they would not hand out overly powerful ones though.
I'd Imagine Terminator armour would give a 6+
Stormshield would be 5+
TA+SS would be a 4+

Only virtually unarmoured models (DE Archons/Succubi etc.) would have access to 2+/3+ invuns (Unless they're temporary like Ghazghkull's Waaagh invun at the moment)

And it'd be FNP/RP OR invun save (and any multi-wound attack would negat FNP/RP)

Yeh don't get me wrong - I like the idea of layered saves, but you are right in saying they need to keep them low. Also only having the option of the 2 best saves if the model has 3 (or more) saves.

2nd edition had layered saves... it really wasn't that bad. And yeah, if they were more conservative, it could avoid some of the silliness and OP things from 2E

 Lobukia wrote:
2nd edition had layered saves... it really wasn't that bad. And yeah, if they were more conservative, it could avoid some of the silliness and OP things from 2E

More guns stripped more armour saves down in 2nd though to balance it (although I suppose there were 'to-hit' modifiers with range and cover too). Same with Warhammer - st4 onwards stripped the armour saves down so Ward saves weren't OP (neither was a Chaos Knights 1+ save).

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
2nd edition had layered saves... it really wasn't that bad. And yeah, if they were more conservative, it could avoid some of the silliness and OP things from 2E

More guns stripped more armour saves down in 2nd though to balance it (although I suppose there were 'to-hit' modifiers with range and cover too). Same with Warhammer - st4 onwards stripped the armour saves down so Ward saves weren't OP (neither was a Chaos Knights 1+ save).

Exactly. But it seems 8's keeping the thought.. just toning down both effects. As they said, "keeping units their stats" more than special rules. I liked 2nd. A moderated form of it, crossed with 1page40k, seems great to me.

hahahah

All the consternation. As an old time player that saw half my mates quit the game after 3rd edition came out with the radical changes, this is amusing.

Have not played since 4th ed first showed. Tried to read most of the 7th ed ruleset til it made RogueTrader rules seem simple. The radical changes are not as much as 2nd to 3rd. but so far seems a major cleanup of the rules bloat.

Waiting for more to come but so far this all looks good. The only thing they can do to really ruin the game is to keep some form of the fall back rules and such.

(in 2nd edition you run to the nearest cover. Why would you not do that in ANY edition when broken...."hey look lets run into that crossfire and get murdered rather than jump into those trees over there" idiocy but I assume some form will still fall into 8th as well.

I agree about liking 2nd - It's when I got into it as a kid. If they do a 2nd style type of game featuring modifiers they can bring a much greater variety to weapons and units - although as you say, they need to tone down the crazier aspects of 2nd.

I like the new system.

1. T-shirt saves actually mean something, as do GEQ.

2. WS and BS mechanicneeded replacing, BS prety much works as it did, WS was a wasted concept as rarely did the 5+ to hit come into play.

3. Lascannon are actually survivable, saves can be made, and they can roll poorly. However the mechanic of d3 and d6 wounds is too crude, it is easier capped where necessary, e.g. d3/2 = d3 roll maximum score of 2; and 2/d3 = d3 roll minimum score of 2
2/d6/5 = d6 damage rolls of 1 count as 2, rolls of 6 count as 5.

This system is versatile thought the D3/2 and D6/4 reults are most used

 Traditio wrote:

ERJAK 724417 wrote:You don't know ANY of that to be true, at all. You are making presumption based on a tiny tiny amount of information about 8th. For all you know the new blasts system could be a billion times more deadly than the old one. Sh*t for all you know large blasts could now be 288D6 distributed to any 3 tables within 45 miles.

Guy A: Alright, so I'll just move my Dire Avengers here...
Guy B: Ok, that's it for movements. Shooting phase?
Guy A: Yes, so, I'm going to use these dire avengers to...

A bell jingles as the door to the FLGS opens. A man comes rushing through the door, breathless, with a bag full of dice in hand.

New guy: WAIT! HALT THE GAME!!!!!!!!

The FLGS owner, noticing the disturbance, walks over:

FLGS owner: Can I help you?

New guy: I'm from the next town over. I drove here as fast as I can, but it was still an hour drive! I need to do this!

FLGS owner: Do what?

New guy: I'm using a Death Stroke, and it's my shooting phase.

New guy runs over to the game table and dumps the bag of dice onto said gaming table.

Guys A and B frantically begin doing calculations, rolling saves and removing models from the table...

You win the internet today. Have an exalt. I haven't laughed this hard on this forum for a long, long time.

Looks like I picked the right time to be building a Salamanders army. I wonder if Chapter Tactics will still exist in some form or another.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

That is a fact - Since Space Marine vs Space Marine is the most common match type I propose that Bolt Weapons be AP3.
Space Marine killers.

Haha, well I guess I can't argue with that logic.

 John Prins wrote:
Looks like I picked the right time to be building a Salamanders army. I wonder if Chapter Tactics will still exist in some form or another.

Oh, most certainly.

I don't think AP will be related to the new modifiers particularly.
I reckon Lascannon will be the mac modifier at -3, along with Meltas and super heavy nasty things. Most regular weapons will be 0, some of the heavier squad weapons like Autocannon and Heavy Bolters might be -1 and then a band of things above that but below the really nasty stuff.

 John Prins wrote:
Looks like I picked the right time to be building a Salamanders army. I wonder if Chapter Tactics will still exist in some form or another.

Already said that they would. Which is good news IMO. I'd really like to see the same for IG from given planets too.

 Luciferian wrote:

HaussVonHorne wrote:

Jbz` wrote:
As one of the most common basic infantry weapons in the galaxy would it not make sense that everyone wears armour that could protect them from it?

No it does not, because then most basic infantry could not move due to the weight/size and cost of the armor. And there are more lasguns and ork sluggas (because there's more armed Guard and orks) in the galaxy to overshadow every boltgun ever made. 7.62 rifles are the most common infantry weapon on earth, so why doesn't everyone just wear a bomb defuser full-body armor suit (assuming those can even stop direct bullets)?

IRL body armor is rated by the NIJ certification system. Soldiers and marines wear level IV rated ceramic plates that are designed to stop multiple 7.62x51 rounds, which are significantly more powerful than 7.62x39 rounds fired by your average AK. No EOD Michelin Man suit required. So, at least in our world, the average soldier does indeed wear body armor designed to exceed the threat of the average infantry round.

The U.S. military is not the average soldier, look towards Russia, China, and the UN peacekeepers for average.

Has there been any word on Invulnerable saves yet?
Is it staying the same or is it going to be like AoS where shields and special rules prevent or impede the rending of weapons?

Iirc Pete Foley answered that question when people asked if the 2 wounds were instead of an Invul for Terminators.

Invuls still exist in some shape - we just don't know the specifics..


EDIT: Hmm upon looking I can't see that anywhere on Twitter, so maybe I heard someone say that elsewhere.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Iirc Pete Foley answered that question when people asked if the 2 wounds were instead of an Invul for Terminators.

Invuls still exist in some shape - we just don't know the specifics..


EDIT: Hmm upon looking I can't see that anywhere on Twitter, so maybe I heard someone say that elsewhere.

I think it may have been from FB instead of Twitter.

Adding to the speculation, as I have no single base or claim I have heard this...

I think I would prefer a system, which maintains the speed of the game they claim it now has. Just roll one save. Perhaps invulnerable saves could be 'replaced' by a sort of a saving throw reduction cap, possibly upgrading a saving throw in the process. Stuff like "Terminator armour saves can never be modified to be worse than 5+" or models with a Storm Shield can never have their saving throw modified to be worse than 3+".

They could always go with Invun saves now just add onto Armour Saves

Ie: 5+ Invun translates to +1 Armour Save, but a 1 always fails. This seems a bit clunky to me, but possible

Or

They could go with it negating ASM points,

Ie: a 4-6 Invul would negate the first negative point of modifier, a 3+ would negate the first two negative points of modifier.

This would be an easier way to work it, though it remove any difference between 4++ to 6++ that we have at the minute.

Using this method would mean that Termies hit by a Lascannon would actually get a 4+ saves, and SS termies would still get their 3+ save

It also then means standard marines with an Invul would get a 5+ or 4+ with SS


This in general means that tougher units would still have a use even with heavy weapons around, but it also stops 1+ saves that can't be hurt or the addition of the "1 always fails" caveat.


For wounding things rather than it working on a straight 6 Wounds everything it could go 6 followed by D6 to wound.


Lastly, we don't know if these weapons have any other specific rules. Perhaps the flamer does still ignore Cover, we have been shown a condensed and clearly "prototype" stat line. No special rules, no extra rules, just the bog standard stats.

it's worth speculating about the STR rating for other weapons, the bolt gun would suddenly look a lot better of other infantry weapons where mostly S3, just for example

C.Straken wrote:
They could always go with Invun saves now just add onto Armour Saves

Ie: 5+ Invun translates to +1 Armour Save, but a 1 always fails. This seems a bit clunky to me, but possible

Or

They could go with it negating ASM points,

Ie: a 4-6 Invul would negate the first negative point of modifier, a 3+ would negate the first two negative points of modifier.

This would be an easier way to work it, though it remove any difference between 4++ to 6++ that we have at the minute.

Using this method would mean that Termies hit by a Lascannon would actually get a 4+ saves, and SS termies would still get their 3+ save

It also then means standard marines with an Invul would get a 5+ or 4+ with SS


This in general means that tougher units would still have a use even with heavy weapons around, but it also stops 1+ saves that can't be hurt or the addition of the "1 always fails" caveat.


For wounding things rather than it working on a straight 6 Wounds everything it could go 6 followed by D6 to wound.


Lastly, we don't know if these weapons have any other specific rules. Perhaps the flamer does still ignore Cover, we have been shown a condensed and clearly "prototype" stat line. No special rules, no extra rules, just the bog standard stats.

negation on negation is messy though, which is something they're trying to get away from.

Late to the party but.. why they did not give the Termies a 1+ that fails on a rolled "1" anyway, like chaos knights in 5th edition WHFB?

Yes, what Straken wrote - sorry, waited long before clicking "submit"

Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:I don't think AP will be related to the new modifiers particularly.
I reckon Lascannon will be the mac modifier at -3, along with Meltas and super heavy nasty things. Most regular weapons will be 0, some of the heavier squad weapons like Autocannon and Heavy Bolters might be -1 and then a band of things above that but below the really nasty stuff.

Well, the Armour Save Modifier will be called AP. We have seen some of the Weapons who had a certain AP have their new AP set at certain levels, so I do believe the correlation exists. Will the correlation be the same for all Weapons? I rather doubt it, but those will be the exceptions rather than the rule. We've seen them change the AP of Weapons in the past.

Like a Chaplain's rosarius invulnerable saves will become "unmodified" so no matter what the AP is they can never be lower than (for example) a 4+.

With some drop of AP values I'm wondering about weapons like the Ork Shoota or Tyranid fleshborers. Will they be the same as Bolters but with different range?

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
With some drop of AP values I'm wondering about weapons like the Ork Shoota or Tyranid fleshborers. Will they be the same as Bolters but with different range?

We haven't seen any assault weapons yet.

The Flamer was, actually, but that's a fair point.

So they nerf bolters.

And autocannons, depending on damage, either
damage 1 - need 32 hits to kill a dread or
more than 1 - shred terminators almost twice faster than now because of -1 modifier whilst ignoring their multi-woundness with that damage

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
So they nerf bolters.

Bolters can now wound Dreads and presumably many other vehicles that they could not touch before. How is that a nerf?

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
So they nerf bolters.

And autocannons, depending on damage, either
damage 1 - need 32 hits to kill a dread or
more than 1 - shred terminators almost twice faster than now because of -1 modifier whilst ignoring their multi-woundness with that damage

You are implying that guardsman and orks etc are still going to have saves. It's hardly a nerf when we haven't seen what they are going to be shooting.

Yes now you can take one of 8 wounds off a dread with your tacs rapid firing. But no more rear armor hp stripping.

And they will also deal 16-33% less damage to light infantry which bolters are supposed to be good against.
As if there were 3 guardsmen instead of 2.

How much will a tac marine cost then, 9 points?

Pretty sure a tactical marine wills till cost similar as today. They didn't just nerf bolter. They in effect nerfed every weapon in the game. A lascannon now allows a Tactical marine to save against it. Making them 1/6 more likely to survive the impossible.

Bolted was never worth 5 pts anyways. For years I've heard shootas were better then bolters. Shootas are 1pt each. You aren't losing the bolted either. It's suffering the same as all infantry basic weapon. We lose our AP too. Imagine if shootas (argued to be better for yrs due to assault rule on it) was worth 5 or more pts which would means orks are 2pts/ model or less?...? Odd how the estimated value of a bolted swings depending on convenience.

Yeah, they aren't only nerfing bolters, they are nerfing every weapon, and personally, I like that. I like to roll my saves, even if they are reduced. I don't like the AP sistem of "If I shoot you with the wrong weapon, you are inmortal, if I shoot you with my 2ap spam, you just vaporice"

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
So they nerf bolters.

And autocannons, depending on damage, either
damage 1 - need 32 hits to kill a dread or
more than 1 - shred terminators almost twice faster than now because of -1 modifier whilst ignoring their multi-woundness with that damage

Bolters are still really good. You are S4, you wound most things on 3's and many others on 4's. Or do you want to swap?

Bolters have always sucked due to the cost of getting them on the field, just as non-gladius tac marines have always sucked. Bolters have NEVER been useful against units that matter.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
So they nerf bolters.

And autocannons, depending on damage, either
damage 1 - need 32 hits to kill a dread or
more than 1 - shred terminators almost twice faster than now because of -1 modifier whilst ignoring their multi-woundness with that damage

Bolters are still really good. You are S4, you wound most things on 3's and many others on 4's. Or do you want to swap?

Yeah kinda. I'll swap for literally anything else actually. I'd go to Lasguns if it made anything even a point cheaper. The only unit that uses Bolters efficiently is Sternguard.

Who needs guns when you can charge ?

People who don't like close combat.