In the new Warhammer 40,000, cover is a bonus to your armour save. Critically, this ability often only applies to certain types of unit. For example, only Infantry gain the bonus of cover from a crater.
This jumped out at me. I wish they had provided one more example to clarify.
You also can’t shoot if there is an enemy with 1″ of you. The exception to this rule is pistols. Models with these hand-held firearms can shoot at the closest enemy target in the Shooting phase, even if they themselves are locked in combat!
I assume this is over and above the hand-to-hand attacks. So dedicated CC troops should get 2 attack types. I wonder if one precludes the other. I guess we'll find out tomorrow when we see charging.
In the new Warhammer 40,000, cover is a bonus to your armour save. Critically, this ability often only applies to certain types of unit. For example, only Infantry gain the bonus of cover from a crater.
This jumped out at me. I wish they had provided one more example to clarify.
Yes me too. But i guess we will get terrain types such as ruins/building will grant a bonus to all units.
I hope theres something to mitigate the -to hit for tanks etc or the guard/orks/deldar(to a degree) and even (dare i say) tau are going to suffer a fair bit as most of there heavys are on armour of one sort or another.
The pistols in combat seems nothing more than a bone to marines of all types and sides as i cant think of an other army which routenly(spl) equips there grunts with pistols as well as main guns.
On cover there really isnt enough info to say more than they said.
Allright so no to hit modifiers but armour save modifiers like rogue trader (RPG). This I like, however we might just need those mortal wounds to kill off some cover shenanigan units ...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skullhammer wrote: I hope theres something to mitigate the -to hit for tanks etc or the guard/orks/deldar(to a degree) and even (dare i say) tau are going to suffer a fair bit as most of there heavys are on armour of one sort or another.
The pistols in combat seems nothing more than a bone to marines of all types and sides as i cant think of an other army which routenly(spl) equips there grunts with pistols as well as main guns.
On cover there really isnt enough info to say more than they said.
ORKS! Slugga's are guns. : D Also inquisition, and all sorts of other GEQ armies can equip all with guns currently.
They didn't say anything about only Infantry getting cover. They said only Infantry could gain cover from a crater. Big difference.
I like that cover is simply a modifier to your armor save. I still would have preferred a modifier on your To Hit roll, but this way still allows all units to benefit from cover, regardless of the AP/Rend of the weapon. Much better for everyone.
Plasma pistols are going to be great to have now; I may even put them on my Berzerker champions (cost depending, of course). Snap shots going away is nice, that was never a good rule. In fact, I like the idea that many aspects now have Modifiers, instead of certain actions/terrain giving you flat numbers to roll. Things are shaping up nicely for #new40k.
Fair enough oldzoggy but sluggers are it they dont come with a shoota at the same time i.e. marines bolt gun and pistol as to inquistion i've not read it.
I was hoping they would actually make players think but give them the "easy button" or even "easier button" this time around for shooting. Before when you had heavy weapons you had to think, move or shoot.
I will have to wait and see how this plays out. After all if it adds fun to the game, then no harm done but if it doesn't add fun to the game and just makes it an easier choice, we will leave the comments until then.
Davor wrote: I was hoping they would actually make players think but give them the "easy button" or even "easier button" this time around for shooting. Before when you had heavy weapons you had to think, move or shoot.
I will have to wait and see how this plays out. After all if it adds fun to the game, then no harm done but if it doesn't add fun to the game and just makes it an easier choice, we will leave the comments until then.
It does allow for better movement of units such as Tacticals.
There are also a few weapons that ignore this bonus cover to armour effect – such as those wielded by Chaos Noise Marines
If Tau Riptides weapons all still remain heavy then they will be nerfed a bit. SMS and HYMPs are all heavy as are the HBC and Ion. So this in and of itself is a nerf to riptides that everyone has been wanting. I think its stupid, but marker lights exist for a reason.
Termies, predators, and land raiders seem to take it up the rear on this one.
Well, that went a direction I didn't expect, I was thinking cover would give a minus to hit, but giving a +1 to armor save changes a few things. Assuming a 1 always fails (a hopefully sane assumption) TEQ won't get much advantage from cover, unless they are hiding from heavy weapons.
As for pistols the ability to shoot out of phase is powerful since it basically means unanswered wounds, I wonder if that means they won't function as CCW to stop double dipping. Though it does give plasma pistols a new lease on life, and makes assault marines a bit cooler since their default comes with a pistol and CCW.
Presuming that Tau Battlesuits, Vehicles, and Termies aren't going to get bespoke rules matching their current "Relentless" c capabilities of firing heavy weapons on the move seems... odd.
While physical cover has been confirmed to be an addition to your armor save, GW has confirmed that some other effects will instead provide negatives to the firer's to-hit roll - the example given was Smoke.
I'm guessing that will be the track taken for units that currently have Stealth and/or Shrouded. If you had one or the other, the firer gets -1, if you had both, the firer gets -2.
I wonder if the Tau Fire Warriors (including Breachers) will be be equipped with pulse pistols officially now (they're found on the sprue, but the unit rules don't give them access).
No mention of AoS's omnipresent Split Fire - that seems like something they WOULD mention in this one, but no guarantee, I suppose.
Grimgold wrote: Well, that went a direction I didn't expect, I was thinking cover would give a minus to hit, but giving a +1 to armor save changes a few things. Assuming a 1 always fails (a hopefully sane assumption) TEQ won't get much advantage from cover, unless they are hiding from heavy weapons.
As for pistols the ability to shoot out of phase is powerful since it basically means unanswered wounds, I wonder if that means they won't function as CCW to stop double dipping. Though it does give plasma pistols a new lease on life, and makes assault marines a bit cooler since their default comes with a pistol and CCW.
Well, people have been talking about letting pistols shoot in CC for a while, so I guess GW caught wind of it.
Skullhammer wrote: I hope there's something to mitigate the -to hit for tanks etc or the guard/orks/deldar(to a degree) and even (dare i say) tau are going to suffer a fair bit as most of there heavies are on armour of one sort or another.
The pistols in combat seems nothing more than a bone to marines of all types and sides as i cant think of an other army which routinely(spl) equips there grunts with pistols as well as main guns.
On cover there really isn't enough info to say more than they said.
Well mostOrk weapons are of the Assault type currently even their equivalents to other races heavy weapons. (I.e Big shoota/Rokkit launcher) so they shouldn't be overly harmed by moving and firing heavy weapons giving a -1
Dark Eldar I hope they'll adjust their weapons (Rapid fire and Heavy weapons on a maneuver based army has never made sense to me)
As for Guard I can imagine the Leman Russ getting something to counteract it slightly. Or they may just increase the base Bs to 3+ (and say only seasoned shooters get gunner positions in IG vehicles)
Davor wrote: I was hoping they would actually make players think but give them the "easy button" or even "easier button" this time around for shooting. Before when you had heavy weapons you had to think, move or shoot.
I will have to wait and see how this plays out. After all if it adds fun to the game, then no harm done but if it doesn't add fun to the game and just makes it an easier choice, we will leave the comments until then.
I disagree. Currently with the Snap Shooting rules a heavy weapon squad like Devestators sits in cover and never moves unless they really need to run for the objective, moving completely kills their shooting. This means that people who take them just leave them in place or go for a unit that has access to Relentless. This time around it looks like whilst your ability to fire Heavy weapons on the move still takes a hit, it will actually be a viable option rather than a possibility thats so remot eit's not worth thinking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimgold wrote: Well, that went a direction I didn't expect, I was thinking cover would give a minus to hit, but giving a +1 to armor save changes a few things. Assuming a 1 always fails (a hopefully sane assumption) TEQ won't get much advantage from cover, unless they are hiding from heavy weapons.
As for pistols the ability to shoot out of phase is powerful since it basically means unanswered wounds, I wonder if that means they won't function as CCW to stop double dipping. Though it does give plasma pistols a new lease on life, and makes assault marines a bit cooler since their default comes with a pistol and CCW.
From the way the article's written I think you'll be shooting your pistols in the shooting phase and hiting your opponents in the combat phase rather than doing it all in the same phase. Whilst I'd normally agree with the double dipping, I think this would depend on certain close combat units having their base attacks boosted as well. Wyches, Howling Banshees and Striking Scorpions would be useless in combat if they remain stuck on their current base 1 attacks and can't gain an extra attack for having 2 CCW (yes, I know, Wyches are already useless but we've been promised better balance so lets see).
redleger wrote:If Tau Riptides weapons all still remain heavy then they will be nerfed a bit. SMS and HYMPs are all heavy as are the HBC and Ion. So this in and of itself is a nerf to riptides that everyone has been wanting. I think its stupid, but marker lights exist for a reason.
Termies, predators, and land raiders seem to take it up the rear on this one.
This assumes that they won't be getting special rules that negate the penalty to firing heavy weapons if they move, which they do already so I see no reason they won't keep it in 8th ed.
Unusual Suspect wrote: Presuming that Tau Battlesuits, Vehicles, and Termies aren't going to get bespoke rules matching their current "Relentless" c capabilities of firing heavy weapons on the move seems... odd.
Agreed, I find it a little absured that so many people seem to think that Relentless, or what ever the equivelent these units will now have is, has been removed from the game.
Well, RIP tyranid close quarters shooting. Not a pistol to be seen, unless spinefists get a change there. Do the bugs even have a "Heavy" type weapon? I can't recall, so no real change there.
StarHunter25 wrote: Well, RIP tyranid close quarters shooting. Not a pistol to be seen, unless spinefists get a change there. Do the bugs even have a "Heavy" type weapon? I can't recall, so no real change there.
Um...no. The rules only say you can't fire if the enemy is 1" within you, which at that point you are in close quarter combat, so they couldn't before either. Though i agree that the weapon should get a special rule that allows it to fire in CQC. And the answer is no mostly assault weapons, must likely because their weapons are physically part of their bodies and not equipment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One type of weapons i am wondering how this new pistol mechanic could affect are shotgun like weapons. They have always been shorter ranged weapons and the idea of using them in CQC to shot at the enemy in the shooting phase like a pistol seems like it could work though I would only make it happen in the first round of CQC instead of every round if they didn't charge.
I'm just seeing more and more good things for my orks. All my sluggas get to shoot while I'm in close combat? Not to mention no shooting if I'm within 1'' of the enemy. I'm loving all these assault buffs.
Grimgold wrote: Well, that went a direction I didn't expect, I was thinking cover would give a minus to hit, but giving a +1 to armor save changes a few things. Assuming a 1 always fails (a hopefully sane assumption) TEQ won't get much advantage from cover, unless they are hiding from heavy weapons.
As for pistols the ability to shoot out of phase is powerful since it basically means unanswered wounds, I wonder if that means they won't function as CCW to stop double dipping. Though it does give plasma pistols a new lease on life, and makes assault marines a bit cooler since their default comes with a pistol and CCW.
From the way the article's written I think you'll be shooting your pistols in the shooting phase and hiting your opponents in the combat phase rather than doing it all in the same phase. Whilst I'd normally agree with the double dipping, I think this would depend on certain close combat units having their base attacks boosted as well. Wyches, Howling Banshees and Striking Scorpions would be useless in combat if they remain stuck on their current base 1 attacks and can't gain an extra attack for having 2 CCW (yes, I know, Wyches are already useless but we've been promised better balance so lets see).
Well, a lot depends on the Pistol rules, but I think that units with a CCW and pistol will be at an advantage. Units like Banshees are the ones who will be screwed the most without something more.
For example, if Pistols do not count as a CCW:
Pistol and CCW: Shoot Pistol while in Combat during Shooting Phase, so use its Strength and AP. Wack once with model's Str. in Combat. This is different from Wack twice with model's Str in Combat.
Pistol and PW: Shoot Pistol in Combat during Shooting Phase using its Str and AP. Wack once with model's Str and Weapon's AP in Combat. This is different from Wack twice with model's Str and Weapon's AP in Combat.
StarHunter25 wrote: Well, RIP tyranid close quarters shooting. Not a pistol to be seen, unless spinefists get a change there. Do the bugs even have a "Heavy" type weapon? I can't recall, so no real change there.
Well, it's not a deathknell to tyranid close range shooting so much as a buff to Marines/eldar/ork melee ability really.
Like you said, fleshborer or spinefists (my money on spinefists!) could be switched to pistols. So a spinefist termigant could essentially get 2 melee attacks (1 for pistol shot, and 1 for biting/stabbing). It would make an interesting choice between them with the fleshborer being the better shooting option, but the spinefist being a more aggressive option. I think it actually.
On the flip side, getting out monstrous creatures shot in the face with plasma pistols even while in melee.....I dunno, that's pretty rough. That said I imagine you can only shoot on YOUR shooting phase, so if your opponent is doing this they have chosen to not move out of melee during movement, so they were probably already in an advantageous position in the melee anyways.
For all we know they might completely change the stats on all the tyranid weapons, so we may end up with heavy weapons and pistols galore.
Sounds good so far, but i wonder how will vehicules' covers be worked out. To decide whther lascanons simly shooting through the walls are any good. Heavy weapons gettjng minus one on the move (once again added a bolt action inspired rule i guess) really makes them interesting now...
Ya'll think we'll really see just layered waves/walls of deployment? And marching straight forward tactics? Kinda like much of WMH is played...
edit:
nvm. I realized 40k doesn't/won't have all of its objectives in a little 1' square box like WMH. It will(/should) still utilize the entire board, so more dynamic deployment/movement tactics will still be a thing. *phew*
Liking what I have heard so far, and perfectly timed for me since Battlefront have made a hash of Flames v4.
-1 to hit when you move makes sense, you should be more accurate when halted, and better trained troops care less.
By putting the cover effect onto armour this free the 'to hit' roll for modifiers like this, nice and simple, drop a coloured bead on anything that moves, personally I'd alter RoF based on moving/stationary but a simple -1 is good enough for me.
Cover boosting armour to me makes a lot of sense, making you harder to hurt.
There are basically two sorts of cover as I see it, the system can now handle both:
1. stuff like fog, makes you harder to hit which should be a 'to hit' modifier
2. stuff like foxholes, makes you harder to hurt which should be a boost to toughness or the armour save.
By splitting cover to the armour save they allow modifiers for smoke etc to be on the to hit roll without it being very easy to make models impossible to hit with stacked modifiers.
My hope is for splitting of fire, either freely or by weapon type, freely is the preference, make it so a squad being approached by two enemy squads and a tank can focus fire on one and do serious damage or spread fire across all three at will.
You'll always shoot with pistols before assaulting. You'll want to, and give you reason to try and assault without using Advance.
You'll lose the bonus attack EVERY assault phase, including the enemy's.
You get to shoot the pistol during the assault in your own shooting phase - pistol weapons for non Independent Characters are usually as good as their melee attacks (but not always). You may cause morale to trigger in that shooting phase, leading to extra casualties (?) before the assault phase rolls around.
Some weapons might be considered Pistols for certain units.
This would be huge for Terminators if Storm Bolters were considered pistols for them.
Charistoph wrote: Anyone else notice that your average Space Marine will not be able to use Cover against Lascannons?
How do you figure? If we assume soft cover (such as wooded terrain) gives +1 to saves for infantry, then a Space Marine in a wood would have a save of (3+ +1 -3) or 5+ save, just like they currently have.
An Ork on the other hand (or Guardsman for that matter) gets screwed with cover.
Charistoph wrote: Anyone else notice that your average Space Marine will not be able to use Cover against Lascannons?
How do you figure? If we assume soft cover (such as wooded terrain) gives +1 to saves for infantry, then a Space Marine in a wood would have a save of (3+ +1 -3) or 5+ save, just like they currently have.
An Ork on the other hand (or Guardsman for that matter) gets screwed with cover.
Well, we still don't have rules for all terrain yet. We may very well see different types of terrain with different cover save mods. And I would imagine Ork and Guard players would be more than happy to eat a lascannon shot at one of their blobs, instead of directed into one of their vehicles, cover or no cover.
I love that pistols can be used in prolonged close combats, Gives stuff like my Sicarian Infiltrators Burst Pistols a lil' bit extra power.
Not sure if they stay the same ofcourse, but 5 shots in close combat would be great!
Is this the thread where we pretend that there aren't going to be about a million special rules and upgrades that mitigate or remove the to-hit penalty for moving altogether? Are we really going to pretend that things like relentless/SnP are going to go the way of the dodo? PotMS is going the way of the dodo, all vehicles will function exactly the same way and distinctions like "heavy" or "fast" won't exist in some fashion?
Pistols being able to be fired while locked in combat combined with being able to shoot while within 1" of the enemy is going to make GSC REALLY deadly.
I think a -1 to heavy weapons is still a pretty large penalty on a d6 roll. The difference between 3+ and 4+ is pretty huge, especially for a team with lascannons who only get a very small number of shots. I think it just makes it more valid than before and makes the game more fluid than before. Reading these new rules makes me realise how static the game was before in terms of rules. Specific cover saves, AP, sticky melee, snap firing on the move with heavy weapons, etc. I think the changes are all combatting these things in a fun way that really adds more dynamics and can probably even add a level of tactics the game didn't have before with tactical retreats and such.
We'll have to see how it actually plays out, but personally, it all sounds like really good stuff
I get the feeling that being able to shoot with your pistol in melee is going to replace the +1 attack for having them rule. So it's a bit of a trade-off I suppose- you can fire your pistol in close-combat, but you aren't getting an extra melee attack. That's nice if you have a good pistol, like a plasma or melta pistol, but it's pretty ass if it's a weak pistol and you're no longer getting an extra attack with your power sword etc.
BlaxicanX wrote: I get the feeling that being able to shoot with your pistol in melee is going to replace the +1 attack for having them rule. So it's a bit of a trade-off I suppose- you can fire your pistol in close-combat, but you aren't getting an extra melee attack. That's nice if you have a good pistol, like a plasma or melta pistol, but it's pretty ass if it's a weak pistol and you're no longer getting an extra attack with your power sword etc.
It sort of makes a lot more sense though. Why would having a bolt pistol mean you can swing your powersword again? I'm also assuming this will come across in their rebalance of each unit
BlaxicanX wrote: I get the feeling that being able to shoot with your pistol in melee is going to replace the +1 attack for having them rule. So it's a bit of a trade-off I suppose- you can fire your pistol in close-combat, but you aren't getting an extra melee attack. That's nice if you have a good pistol, like a plasma or melta pistol, but it's pretty ass if it's a weak pistol and you're no longer getting an extra attack with your power sword etc.
A unit of 20 acolyte hybrids with flamer pistols. d3 (because they are pistols instead of full flamers) or so extra automatic hits is a LOT better than +1a.
Tiberius501 wrote: I think a -1 to heavy weapons is still a pretty large penalty on a d6 roll. The difference between 3+ and 4+ is pretty huge, especially for a team with lascannons who only get a very small number of shots. I think it just makes it more valid than before and makes the game more fluid than before. Reading these new rules makes me realise how static the game was before in terms of rules. Specific cover saves, AP, sticky melee, snap firing on the move with heavy weapons, etc. I think the changes are all combatting these things in a fun way that really adds more dynamics and can probably even add a level of tactics the game didn't have before with tactical retreats and such.
We'll have to see how it actually plays out, but personally, it all sounds like really good stuff
Even the new terrain they've released will affect things as it actually blocks LOS a lot better than before meaning moving to get a shot will be more important for more shooty armies
Not loving how the new Cover rules kinda of screws the little guy...
Then again, the little guys now actually have a standard armor save while before seeing 5+ or 6+ Armor save on your sheet might as well have been remembered as "no armor at all"
Talamare wrote: Not loving how the new Cover rules kinda of screws the little guy...
Then again, the little guys now actually have a standard armor save while before seeing 5+ or 6+ Armor save on your sheet might as well have been remembered as "no armor at all"
Nope. Look at the bolter. No AP at all. Again, everything has to be looked at together. Lascannons are at =3. So, a terminator with cover is saving on a 4+.
BlaxicanX wrote: I get the feeling that being able to shoot with your pistol in melee is going to replace the +1 attack for having them rule. So it's a bit of a trade-off I suppose- you can fire your pistol in close-combat, but you aren't getting an extra melee attack. That's nice if you have a good pistol, like a plasma or melta pistol, but it's pretty ass if it's a weak pistol and you're no longer getting an extra attack with your power sword etc.
It sort of makes a lot more sense though. Why would having a bolt pistol mean you can swing your powersword again? I'm also assuming this will come across in their rebalance of each unit
Oh, I absolutely agree. Just something that occured to me while I was digesting the new info. It does intuitively make more sense.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Does mean that the Plasma Pistol might finally have an actual point to its ridiculous cost.
Even with these rules plasma pistols still need a points reduction. Single shot ap2 at bs3 or worse is not worth the crazy prices we see for them.
Talamare wrote: Not loving how the new Cover rules kinda of screws the little guy...
Then again, the little guys now actually have a standard armor save while before seeing 5+ or 6+ Armor save on your sheet might as well have been remembered as "no armor at all"
Nope. Look at the bolter. No AP at all. Again, everything has to be looked at together. Lascannons are at =3. So, a terminator with cover is saving on a 4+.
You may want to read that again as that is what he was getting at.
3rd-7th edition 5+/6+ armour saves have been pretty much "you have no save"
While 8th edition seems like they'll actually get to roll them from basic weapons.
Tiberius501 wrote: I think a -1 to heavy weapons is still a pretty large penalty on a d6 roll.
For marines, at least, hitting on a 4+ with heavies while moving is FAR better than hitting on a 6+. Even for single shot weapons. This makes heavy weapons something worth taking in Tactical squads (who you expect to move), and allows dedicated heavy weapon teams to move into position first turn but still have effective shooting.
This is a good balance IMO. You WANT a heavy weapons team to stay put, but you're not crippled if they need to move.
Talamare wrote: Not loving how the new Cover rules kinda of screws the little guy...
Then again, the little guys now actually have a standard armor save while before seeing 5+ or 6+ Armor save on your sheet might as well have been remembered as "no armor at all"
Nope. Look at the bolter. No AP at all. Again, everything has to be looked at together. Lascannons are at =3. So, a terminator with cover is saving on a 4+.
You may want to read that again as that is what he was getting at.
3rd-7th edition 5+/6+ armour saves have been pretty much "you have no save"
While 8th edition seems like they'll actually get to roll them from basic weapons.
Yeah, I misread the second part after reading the first part.
Tiberius501 wrote: I think a -1 to heavy weapons is still a pretty large penalty on a d6 roll.
For marines, at least, hitting on a 4+ with heavies while moving is FAR better than hitting on a 6+. Even for single shot weapons. This makes heavy weapons something worth taking in Tactical squads (who you expect to move), and allows dedicated heavy weapon teams to move into position first turn but still have effective shooting.
This is a good balance IMO. You WANT a heavy weapons team to stay put, but you're not crippled if they need to move.
I'll -1 to hit over snap shooting any day of the week. Sounds like tanks get hit, but if they fire ALL at -1, that's better than 1 at full BS and others snap shoot.
So pistol and heavy weapons got much better. If pistols keep their +1 attacks with CC, that's a buff for everyone with a pistol. Which is nice, since pistols were mostly just a nice thing to have if you were an assault unit.
If not, it's pretty much just a buff for imperials (and CSM/GSC to a lesser degree). Inferno/flame/plasma pistols now get their full strength, you can use pistols with your power fists without feeing dumb, and tac marines now have a use for their pistols.
If you play xeno, though? Eh. Straight up slap in the face for orks, Eldar are uneffected, Necron have a handful of units with pistols, nids don't have any, and why would Tau give a flying feth about pistols in melee? Dark Eldar are the only ones who get that nice bonus.
And heavys only having a -1 bs when moving is a slap on the wrist. I remember when your two choices were "shoot, or move" THAT was a tactical choice.
I really hope Assault weapons get something to help them out, because they're really looking like duds.
Tiberius501 wrote: Why would having a bolt pistol mean you can swing your powersword again?
I swing at you with my sword. You deftly parry the blow, then, out of the corners of your eyes, you see the muzzle of the gun being aimed at your head. In an attempt to stay the freak alive, you bash the gun away, opening yourself up for the next stab of the sword.
It's a narrative thing.
But yes, I agree, if the rules change so that you actually get to use both your weapons, pistols in the shooting phase and melee weapons in the close combat phase (or whatever they will be called), that comes off as more intuitive. Makes me like what I'm seeing now.
Even with these rules plasma pistols still need a points reduction. Single shot ap2 at bs3 or worse is not worth the crazy prices we see for them.
I might disagree with that, The person you kill doesn't get to attack back, adding defensive utility on top of the otherwise obvious offensive utility. I happily paid for whipcoils on my wraiths despite them doing nothing other than letting me hit first, so I think you're underestimating the utility.
Charistoph wrote: Anyone else notice that your average Space Marine will not be able to use Cover against Lascannons?
How do you figure? If we assume soft cover (such as wooded terrain) gives +1 to saves for infantry, then a Space Marine in a wood would have a save of (3+ +1 -3) or 5+ save, just like they currently have.
An Ork on the other hand (or Guardsman for that matter) gets screwed with cover.
Because Cover can only be used when you are denied an Armour Save. Lascannons are -3. I can still roll a 6+ against that with a 3+ Armour Save.
Oops, read that wrong. That was talking about the 7th Ed system.
Charistoph wrote: Anyone else notice that your average Space Marine will not be able to use Cover against Lascannons?
How do you figure? If we assume soft cover (such as wooded terrain) gives +1 to saves for infantry, then a Space Marine in a wood would have a save of (3+ +1 -3) or 5+ save, just like they currently have.
An Ork on the other hand (or Guardsman for that matter) gets screwed with cover.
Because Cover can only be used when you are denied an Armour Save. Lascannons are -3. I can still roll a 6+ against that with a 3+ Armour Save.
Oops, read that wrong. That was talking about the 7th Ed system.
You are mistaken. The way that they are treating cover is just a direct port from Age of Sigmar, where cover simply provides a +1 boost to all saves.
The lascannon would reduce power armor to a 6+ save. Cover would then provide at least a +1, which would bump it up to at least a 5+ armor save.
Overall these changes in Shooting support high skilled units more so than low skill units
A BS3 unit being forced to Snap Fire means he lost -2 BS A B55 unit being forced to Snap Fire means he lost -4 BS
New rule is just a blank -1 BS, so the Elite Gun will still be an Elite Gun.
Same applies for Cover, being in Awesome Armor and behind cover will afford you better survivability than being in a Speedo and behind Cover. While before the 2 would be equal.
It also does give reasons for people with good armor to use cover more often.
Traditio wrote: You are mistaken. The way that they are treating cover is just a direct port from Age of Sigmar, where cover simply provides a +1 boost to all saves.
The lascannon would reduce power armor to a 6+ save. Cover would then provide at least a +1, which would bump it up to at least a 5+ armor save.
Yeah, that's why I said, "Oops, I read that wrong."
Talamare wrote: Overall these changes in Shooting support high skilled units more so than low skill units
A BS3 unit being forced to Snap Fire means he lost -2 BS A B55 unit being forced to Snap Fire means he lost -4 BS
New rule is just a blank -1 BS, so the Elite Gun will still be an Elite Gun.
Same applies for Cover, being in Awesome Armor and behind cover will afford you better survivability than being in a Speedo and behind Cover. While before the 2 would be equal.
It also does give reasons for people with good armor to use cover more often.
My tactical marines and devastators with heavy weapons are never going to come out of hiding. I am going to roll 2+ armor saves and fire pot shots all day long.
it's also worth noting that weapons that where previously heavy may not remain. for example assault cannons could receive an assault classification instead of a heavy.
Is the one inch rule a unit or model thing?
Somehow I don't see it being a unit thing due to mixed weaponry, still, a small squad like the current Deathwatch Veterans with the basic Chainsword+Boltgun combinations will possibly be chump blocked by larger, cheaper units like Gretchin/Runtherd just by standing in the way.
It was previously against the rules altogether to have a unit within 1'' of an enemy unit without being in combat with it. So in that sense things haven't really changed much. Saying that pistols can shoot at units within 1'' is really just a fancy way of saying that pistols can fire while in combats.
This cover change is the first red flag to me. 2+ armour marines is hardly going to be fun unless rends are far more common and significant than the profiles shown thus far.
Tyel wrote: This cover change is the first red flag to me. 2+ armour marines is hardly going to be fun unless rends are far more common and significant than the profiles shown thus far.
It'll be fun for me!
In all seriousness, though:
Power armored marines are much too vulnerable right now. They're not supposed to die left and right.
Tyel wrote: This cover change is the first red flag to me. 2+ armour marines is hardly going to be fun unless rends are far more common and significant than the profiles shown thus far.
You mean more common then the literal like, two weapons profiles we've seen?
Having more than 2 rend weapons in the entire game is a pretty safe bet, my friend.
Some of the new rules and profiles scare me but to an extent the shooting phase examples felt good. My only issue is falling back from a melee. Normally even when you lost combat there was a chance when failing morale to get your whole unit swept and killed instantly. I want more details on falling back from combat because it should be a risky maneuver that might get your troops killed and/or falling back and in need of re-group. Otherwise i'm mostly ok with the shooting and cover (cover system is more like 7th and 8th fantasy honestly).
So far i'm split on this new edition. It half makes me wanna crap myself and leave and the other half feel like maybe things will be ok. This is an example of #2 (and not the crap myself one ;P).
All that said considering how weapons are my poisoned attacks may become much worse. I'm not entirely sure. Would they kill vehicles better (a move that kinda makes no sense)? How will haywire work now and will it even exist since some weapons clearly have it? Giving units with armor and cover more options just makes power armored units more powerful esp. if bike units can jink or have cover somehow. I mean if i hit an enemy with poisoned instead of taking the same 3+ i have to go through armor and cover and most have so much that poison will just suck in shooting. Perhaps they'll explain more on this later.
I might have missed it, but did they tell us how targeting is going to work? Because I sincerely hope that the old way of everyone in a unit making all of their attacks against one unit goes the way of the dodo. It would make new combos possible. Go ahead and put heavy bolters on your Vanquisher! They can just shoot the infantry surrounding the tank your cannon is aiming for.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Some of the new rules and profiles scare me but to an extent the shooting phase examples felt good. My only issue is falling back from a melee. Normally even when you lost combat there was a chance when failing morale to get your whole unit swept and killed instantly. I want more details on falling back from combat because it should be a risky maneuver that might get your troops killed and/or falling back and in need of re-group. Otherwise i'm mostly ok with the shooting and cover (cover system is more like 7th and 8th fantasy honestly).
So far i'm split on this new edition. It half makes me wanna crap myself and leave and the other half feel like maybe things will be ok. This is an example of #2 (and not the crap myself one ;P).
All that said considering how weapons are my poisoned attacks may become much worse. I'm not entirely sure. Would they kill vehicles better (a move that kinda makes no sense)? How will haywire work now and will it even exist since some weapons clearly have it? Giving units with armor and cover more options just makes power armored units more powerful esp. if bike units can jink or have cover somehow. I mean if i hit an enemy with poisoned instead of taking the same 3+ i have to go through armor and cover and most have so much that poison will just suck in shooting. Perhaps they'll explain more on this later.
For poisoned it would probably be some thing similar to how it is now. Instead of a strength vs toughness roll the to wound roll is fixed and would likely (assuming they will be using keywords like in AoS) say that the rule has no effect on units with the vehicle keyword.
For Haywire maybe each wound does D3 damage instead of 1 if the target is a vehicle.
My tactical marines and devastators with heavy weapons are never going to come out of hiding. I am going to roll 2+ armor saves and fire pot shots all day long.
I think that's the goal, make people use cover rather than standing out in the open. It has all sorts of interesting effects on tactics, like making assault units one of the best ways to dislodge entrenched enemies, and changing the board control currency from firelane to cover. Oddly enough the low armor people will be the least likely to take cover since it doesn't do as much good for them, going from a 5+ to a 4+is a 50% increase in survivability, going from a 3+ to a 2+ is literally doubling your chance of making a save. That seems like a perverse incentive, The better your armor the better cover is. Which is why I was shocked when they said it would add to armor save rather than being a negative modifier to hit (which would mean being in cover is equally good for everyone). It just seems like a bad math decision, which the reveals have been avoiding up to this point.
My tactical marines and devastators with heavy weapons are never going to come out of hiding. I am going to roll 2+ armor saves and fire pot shots all day long.
I think that's the goal, make people use cover rather than standing out in the open. It has all sorts of interesting effects on tactics, like making assault units one of the best ways to dislodge entrenched enemies, and changing the board control currency from firelane to cover. Oddly enough the low armor people will be the least likely to take cover since it doesn't do as much good for them, going from a 5+ to a 4+is a 50% increase in survivability, going from a 3+ to a 2+ is literally doubling your chance of making a save. That seems like a perverse incentive, The better your armor the better cover is. Which is why I was shocked when they said it would add to armor save rather than being a negative modifier to hit (which would mean being in cover is equally good for everyone). It just seems like a bad math decision, which the reveals have been avoiding up to this point.
I know, and it's a bad idea there as well despite the majority save being a 4+. In a galaxy of MEQ it's an even worse mechanic because nothing should double a unit's survivability because that starts to feel required as opposed to tactical. in a year (if not a much shorter time period) people will be saying this is their least favorite aspect of the game, I'll bet real money on it.
My tactical marines and devastators with heavy weapons are never going to come out of hiding. I am going to roll 2+ armor saves and fire pot shots all day long.
I think that's the goal, make people use cover rather than standing out in the open. It has all sorts of interesting effects on tactics, like making assault units one of the best ways to dislodge entrenched enemies, and changing the board control currency from firelane to cover. Oddly enough the low armor people will be the least likely to take cover since it doesn't do as much good for them, going from a 5+ to a 4+is a 50% increase in survivability, going from a 3+ to a 2+ is literally doubling your chance of making a save. That seems like a perverse incentive, The better your armor the better cover is. Which is why I was shocked when they said it would add to armor save rather than being a negative modifier to hit (which would mean being in cover is equally good for everyone). It just seems like a bad math decision, which the reveals have been avoiding up to this point.
5 wounds with 2+ = 30 EHP
5 wounds with 3+ = 15 EHP
5 wounds with 4+ = 10 EHP
5 wounds with 5+ = 7.5 EHP
5 wounds with 6+ = 6 EHP
Grimgold wrote: I know, and it's a bad idea there as well despite the majority save being a 4+. In a galaxy of MEQ it's an even worse mechanic because nothing should double a unit's survivability because that starts to feel required as opposed to tactical. in a year (if not a much shorter time period) people will be saying this is their least favorite aspect of the game, I'll bet real money on it.
I think it's going to be a trade-off.
If you're sitting in cover, then you're not moving to objectives.
It's also going to add an additional strategic level to placing objectives. "Do I place this mid field objective in cover so that I have a better armor save when I take it, or do I put it outside of cover to lure my opponent to try to take it...and thereby make it easier for me to remove his models?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also wish to note that making cover work this way also has the potential to make melee units more appealing.
Effective hit points, I first encountered it in wow, it means how many hit points it takes to down you after mitigation. Replace hit points with wounds and you get the idea. If only 1 in 6 wounds gets through and you have 5 wounds you end up with 30 wounds effectively because each of your wounds takes six to take.
*Edit* this is assuming the rule of one applies, eg ones are always failures. If not, well let's not go there cause that's a silly land best left alone.
Not too bad actually, as much as everyone complained about it when we had it will be fun to see them limping now that the shoe is on the other foot. Besides we are secretly GW's favored children, so I imagine we will get gauss like in SWA which is a huge upgrade for us.
Martel732 wrote: I'll -1 to hit over snap shooting any day of the week. Sounds like tanks get hit, but if they fire ALL at -1, that's better than 1 at full BS and others snap shoot.
That depends on the tank. For example Tau Hammerheads only have one gun, so that is a straight up nerf for an already bad unit. There are also Vindicators, Thunderers, and probably more.
Though they could have a relentless equivalent, but I doubt all vehicles will get it if any of them do, as GW explicitly said that the -1 to hit will apply to vehicles.
My guess is that cover mechanics that represent hiding behind obstacles will modify armor, but things that are supposed to represent smoke, invisibility, stealth, etc that reflect being hard to see, will modify To Hit.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'm still bitter that cover adds to armour saves rather than being a modifier on To-Hit rolls.
Well, if it's any consolation:
There are going to be BS modifiers (e.g., smoke launchers).
I know.
That's probably why they did it, otherwise it would be pretty easy to make it impossible to shoot at vehicles.
Night Fighting gives Shrouded -1 to To Hit rolls.
Smoke Launchers -1 to To Hit rolls.
Ruin Cover -2 to To Hit rolls.
Ladies and gentlemen, your 3+ to hit is now a 7+ on a d6, best of luck.
I believe the reason they did it aside from that.. Is that you KNOW it's there and as a result aren't penalized to hit, but you are still firing through the terrain itself to get to the vehicle thus weakening the actual shots that hit it.
Given that you can flee out of combat, and can fire Pistols in combat, I have my money on them removing overwatch from the game. We'll hopefully find out tomorrow when they reveal more about the combat phase!
rollawaythestone wrote: Given that you can flee out of combat, and can fire Pistols in combat, I have my money on them removing overwatch from the game. We'll hopefully find out tomorrow when they reveal more about the combat phase!
I'm hoping that they remove overwatch from the game entirely.
rollawaythestone wrote: Given that you can flee out of combat, and can fire Pistols in combat, I have my money on them removing overwatch from the game. We'll hopefully find out tomorrow when they reveal more about the combat phase!
I'm hoping that they remove overwatch from the game entirely.
Maybe, if they re-introduce consolidating from successful combats like they had in 5th ed Overwatch could remain a feature.
This all depends on other ballistic weapon types work. We only know pistol, assault weapons might allow you to move and shoot at a modified to hit roll. Interesting and a fall back option means not using cc as a safe zone when your otherwise surrounded. This is good
I am shocked that it ads to a save rather than reduces to hit. But I am starting to see that being a problem for ballistic skill mod spam. That could essentially bringing back snap shots without the rule. Plus buffing armor makes more sense.
Lastly some units might have a 2d6 rule if the armour is high enough like termies or tanks. That would kind of level out MC,vehicles and termies/other high armour infantry.
I said it before on the facebook thing. LOVE the pistol idea. HATE the heavy weapon idea. Over course I hated snap fire too, as I'd rather heavy weapons be move OR fire. And there's no good reason for it not to be.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I said it before on the facebook thing. LOVE the pistol idea. HATE the heavy weapon idea. Over course I hated snap fire too, as I'd rather heavy weapons be move OR fire. And there's no good reason for it not to be.
Because the most irritating heavy weapons in 7th ed are on fast moving relentless platforms anyway.
BlaxicanX wrote: You mean more common then the literal like, two weapons profiles we've seen?
Having more than 2 rend weapons in the entire game is a pretty safe bet, my friend.
Well we have seen three profiles so far. No rend on flamers or bolt guns - which suggests most infantry weapons won't have them (or at least no more than -1). I am sure special weapons like plasma and grav may have some - but will they have enough?
Lascannons only have -3. Okay if your vehicles are going to have a 3+ save with little chance to make it larger then that's not too bad - but if its very easy to get 2+ suddenly that seems a bit weak.
As has been said in Age of Sigmar its relatively rare to get more than a 4+ save base.
I don't want a situation where small arms are pointless. The current system where anything that isn't S6 and preferably AP2 or 3 is sneered at isn't great.
I think AV10-10-10 with 3HP like ork trukks or dark eldar raider will become T6, 8W and 4+ sv. But rhinos are actually AV11 so I guess they will have a little benefit like a 3+ save. T7 would probably be too much. Or maybe they get a 4+ sv and the AV10-10-10 a 5+ one.
I think we should consider the potential that this kinda of open the door for different vehicle types.
Imperial Guard have hardy high armoured vehicle which might be represented by better Saves, but lower Toughness. While Orkz have huge amount of wounds on their vehicles, but terrible saves. Finally Tau has well engineered vehicles, but poorer material giving them high toughness and lower wounds...
Point is, 3 Hull might not always translate into 8 wounds.
AV Value might not translate into specific toughness values.
I think we should consider the potential that this kinda of open the door for different vehicle types.
Imperial Guard have hardy high armoured vehicle which might be represented by better Saves, but lower Toughness. While Orkz have huge amount of wounds on their vehicles, but terrible saves. Finally Tau has well engineered vehicles, but poorer material giving them high toughness and lower saves...
Point is, 3 Hull might not always translate into 8 wounds.
AV Value might not translate into specific toughness values.
likewise you might also start to see differances in between when units lose effectiveness for multiple wounds Orc vehicles with their ramshackle nature might start to lose effectiveness very quick, Imperial guard might have a nice gradual curve, and space marine units based off the rhino chassis, which is suppsoed to bewell known for it's reliability and over all durability may not degrade much as all.
Future War Cultist wrote: See the variety you can get from using wounds and toughness? It's awesome!
I just hope that they free up units to target different enemies. Make different weapon combos and sponsons more useable.
yeah it'd be nice if "lascannon, and bolter sponsons" was a viable and useful predator config.
Yeah it would be very nice. And realistic! Attack vehicles should have the tools for every job besides a few highly specialized ones. Plus, forcing everyone to shoot at one target is an abstraction too far in my opinion, and I'm one who feels that abstraction is required.
I would love to have a Vanquisher with lascannon and anti infantry sponsons. It just feels right. Having a squad or vehicle all carrying one type of weapon never felt right to me. Now we could have a sniper, grenadier etc, like real life units.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'm still bitter that cover adds to armour saves rather than being a modifier on To-Hit rolls.
Modifiers on to hit rolls did not end well in 2nd.
How do you figure that? Shooting still ruled the roost.
Because only two lists could handle 100 8pt hormagaunts moving fast through cover. Pray to your emprah as your 30 pt marines hit on 5's. Game over man, game over.
So do I have this right?
Terminators have a 2+ save. They get in to cover, and let's say it adds 3 to the save, so that brings them down to a -1 save. They would still be rolling 2+ to save
They are then shot at with a weapon that is -2 to save modifier, so then then are back to a 1 to save, so they will still get 2+ yeah?
Rippy wrote: So do I have this right?
Terminators have a 2+ save. They get in to cover, and let's say it adds 3 to the save, so that brings them down to a -1 save. They would still be rolling 2+ to save
They are then shot at with a weapon that is -2 to save modifier, so then then are back to a 1 to save, so they will still get 2+ yeah?
Rippy wrote: So do I have this right?
Terminators have a 2+ save. They get in to cover, and let's say it adds 3 to the save, so that brings them down to a -1 save. They would still be rolling 2+ to save
They are then shot at with a weapon that is -2 to save modifier, so then then are back to a 1 to save, so they will still get 2+ yeah?
Sounds about right. That's how it used to work in WHFB.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'm still bitter that cover adds to armour saves rather than being a modifier on To-Hit rolls.
Modifiers on to hit rolls did not end well in 2nd.
How do you figure that? Shooting still ruled the roost.
Because only two lists could handle 100 8pt hormagaunts moving fast through cover. Pray to your emprah as your 30 pt marines hit on 5's. Game over man, game over.
I have a Tyrannid army, you just described my wet dream.
As i said i'm somewhat iffy with this considering poisoned shooting. Currently poisoned shooting is kinda meh already. If saves are added poisoned shooting would be absolute garbage. Can you imagine bikes getting armor and cover saves vs poisoned shots? I mean vs tough armies like necrons and admech it might still matter but vs bikes (if they can still jink) it won't matter at all.
flamingkillamajig wrote: As i said i'm somewhat iffy with this considering poisoned shooting. Currently poisoned shooting is kinda meh already. If saves are added poisoned shooting would be absolute garbage. Can you imagine bikes getting armor and cover saves vs poisoned shots? I mean vs tough armies like necrons and admech it might still matter but vs bikes (if they can still jink) it won't matter at all.
Maybe poison weapons will gain a Mortal Wound on a 6 to Wound. Imagine that. How OP will be?!
Worring about rules when we don't have all the picture is really a futile effort. Just wait and see.
Hello. This was posted in the old 8th ed' rumour thread that quickly got overloaded with off topic flood, then closed. I think it would be nice to have following facts here.
So I would like to put out some arguments on vehicle resiliency. I will take the dreadnought as an example obviously because we have his stats.
Let's assume that scatter laser, a typical medium strength spammable weapon, a favourite in 7th ed will get its stats (S:6 AP:6 heavy 4) converted to this :
S:6 AP: 0 heavy: 4 both calculations are done for BS 4 / BS 3+.
probability to strip a HP in 7th ed : 2/3 * 1/6 = 1/9 per shot which leads to an expected value of 3/(1/9) = 27 shots ; or 6.75 volleys for vehicle destruction.
probability to strip a HP in 8th ed : 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 = 2/27 per shot which leads to an expected value of 8/(2/27) = 108 shots ; or 27 volleys for vehicle destruction.
300 % more hits needed, the survivability is massively improved.
But...
Let's take a look as lascannon now, @ BS 4 / BS 3+.
It is difficult to calculate the expected value of hits to destroy a dreadnought in 7th edition because of the duality of stripping HP one by one and risk of sudden explosion.
To avoid the pain of building an obnoxious spread sheet let's assume this approximation : given AP2 on a on the damage table we count 3 HP instead of 1.
probability of removing 3 HP via penetrating hits : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 = 1/18
probability of removing 1 HP : 2/3 * 1/6 (glancing hits) + 2/3 * 1/2 * 5/6 (non explosive penetrating hits) = 7/18
expected value of HP removed per shot : 3*1/18 + 7/18 = 10/18 ; so to remove 3 HP you will need 3 / (10/18) = 5.40 lascannon shots approximately.
Now in 8th edition, it's simpler.
Each lascannon shot fired @ BS 3+ has 2/3 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 50/108 probability of applying damage. Each damage has a mean value of 3.5 HP removed.
So to remove all 8 HP of the dreadnought you need : 8 / (3.5 * 50/108) = 4.94 lascannon shots approximately.
As you can see, in this second case, because of the introduction of multiple damage and lowering of T value of the dreadnought, his survivability is somewhat lowered in 8th edition.
Hello. This was posted in the old 8th ed' rumour thread that quickly got overloaded with off topic flood, then closed. I think it would be nice to have following facts here.
So I would like to put out some arguments on vehicle resiliency. I will take the dreadnought as an example obviously because we have his stats.
Let's assume that scatter laser, a typical medium strength spammable weapon, a favourite in 7th ed will get its stats (S:6 AP:6 heavy 4) converted to this :
S:6 AP: 0 heavy: 4 both calculations are done for BS 4 / BS 3+.
probability to strip a HP in 7th ed : 2/3 * 1/6 = 1/9 per shot which leads to an expected value of 3/(1/9) = 27 shots ; or 6.75 volleys for vehicle destruction.
probability to strip a HP in 8th ed : 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 = 2/27 per shot which leads to an expected value of 8/(2/27) = 108 shots ; or 27 volleys for vehicle destruction.
300 % more hits needed, the survivability is massively improved.
But...
Let's take a look as lascannon now, @ BS 4 / BS 3+.
It is difficult to calculate the expected value of hits to destroy a dreadnought in 7th edition because of the duality of stripping HP one by one and risk of sudden explosion.
To avoid the pain of building an obnoxious spread sheet let's assume this approximation : given AP2 on a on the damage table we count 3 HP instead of 1.
probability of removing 3 HP via penetrating hits : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 = 1/18
probability of removing 1 HP : 2/3 * 1/6 (glancing hits) + 2/3 * 1/2 * 5/6 (non explosive penetrating hits) = 7/18
expected value of HP removed per shot : 3*1/18 + 7/18 = 10/18 ; so to remove 3 HP you will need 3 / (10/18) = 5.40 lascannon shots approximately.
Now in 8th edition, it's simpler.
Each lascannon shot fired @ BS 3+ has 2/3 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 50/108 probability of applying damage. Each damage has a mean value of 3.5 HP removed.
So to remove all 8 HP of the dreadnought you need : 8 / (3.5 * 50/108) = 4.94 lascannon shots approximately.
As you can see, in this second case, because of the introduction of multiple damage and lowering of T value of the dreadnought, his survivability is somewhat lowered in 8th edition.
Actually I would argue that the Dread's survivabilities has increased against weapons that should be anti-infantry/light vehicles 9like Scatter lasers) but conversely anti-tank weapons have been boosted to actually do what they are supposed to.
I love this change in theory (theory being basically all we have right now) but it still remains to be seen if the balance is right. I am optimistic
Somewhat lowered against anti-tank weapons, highly increased against anti-infantry weapons, and now with chance to have wounds stripped by basic infantry weapons. Presumable a smaller chance of being one shot by a single weapon (although we're not sure on this, since we don't know the stats for meltaguns/ordnance weapons).
I would think that this is the system people wanted: Anti-tank weapons required to do any major damage and everything else being much harder to scrape anything off. since I imagine grav and haywire will also get nerfs, it's hard to imagine vehicles becoming weaker than they are now.
Marmatag wrote: I will be curious to see what happens with salvo weapons. They already pay a brutal penalty for movement.
Well, Salvo could just vanish, maybe? Change them to Heavy with full shots (or full shots -1) and let them suck the normal penalty for moving/shooting.
I don't think being able to one-shot a vehicle will be a thing in 8th. At least not enough to worry about.
I don't think any thing will do more than D6 Mortal Wounds and I think only Open-topped 2HP vehicles will end up with less than 6 wounds.
if you need a D-shot to kill a Vyper in 1 shot, that paints a pretty clear picture of how durable vehicles will be in 8th.
Ravajaxe wrote: Hello. This was posted in the old 8th ed' rumour thread that quickly got overloaded with off topic flood, then closed. I think it would be nice to have following facts here.
So I would like to put out some arguments on vehicle resiliency. I will take the dreadnought as an example obviously because we have his stats.
Let's assume that scatter laser, a typical medium strength spammable weapon, a favourite in 7th ed will get its stats (S:6 AP:6 heavy 4) converted to this :
S:6 AP: 0 heavy: 4 both calculations are done for BS 4 / BS 3+.
probability to strip a HP in 7th ed : 2/3 * 1/6 = 1/9 per shot which leads to an expected value of 3/(1/9) = 27 shots ; or 6.75 volleys for vehicle destruction.
probability to strip a HP in 8th ed : 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 = 2/27 per shot which leads to an expected value of 8/(2/27) = 108 shots ; or 27 volleys for vehicle destruction.
300 % more hits needed, the survivability is massively improved.
But...
Let's take a look as lascannon now, @ BS 4 / BS 3+.
It is difficult to calculate the expected value of hits to destroy a dreadnought in 7th edition because of the duality of stripping HP one by one and risk of sudden explosion.
To avoid the pain of building an obnoxious spread sheet let's assume this approximation : given AP2 on a on the damage table we count 3 HP instead of 1.
probability of removing 3 HP via penetrating hits : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 = 1/18
probability of removing 1 HP : 2/3 * 1/6 (glancing hits) + 2/3 * 1/2 * 5/6 (non explosive penetrating hits) = 7/18
expected value of HP removed per shot : 3*1/18 + 7/18 = 10/18 ; so to remove 3 HP you will need 3 / (10/18) = 5.40 lascannon shots approximately.
Now in 8th edition, it's simpler.
Each lascannon shot fired @ BS 3+ has 2/3 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 50/108 probability of applying damage. Each damage has a mean value of 3.5 HP removed.
So to remove all 8 HP of the dreadnought you need : 8 / (3.5 * 50/108) = 4.94 lascannon shots approximately.
As you can see, in this second case, because of the introduction of multiple damage and lowering of T value of the dreadnought, his survivability is somewhat lowered in 8th edition.
What? Not going to look at cover saves which aren't difficult to get even for Vehicles?
probability to strip a HP in 7th ed : 2/3 * 1/6 * 1/2 = 2/36 per shot which leads to an expected value of 3/(1/18) = 54 shots ; or 13.5 volleys for vehicle destruction.
probability to strip a HP in 8th ed : 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/6 = 2/54 per shot which leads to an expected value of 8/(1/27) = 216 shots ; or 54 volleys for vehicle destruction.
7th Edition
probability of removing 3 HP via penetrating hits : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 * 3 = 3/72
Edit -
probability of removing 2 HP via penetrating hit after a glancing hit : 14/36 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 * 2 = 14/648
90/648 + 36/648 + 27/648 + 14/648= 3/(167/648) = 11.64 Lascannon Shots
Edit2 -
[i]probability of removing 2 HP via immobilizing twice : 2/36 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 * 2 = 2/648
90/648 + 36/648 + 27/648 + 14/648 + 2/648 = 3/(169/648) = 11.50 Lascannon Shots(Note this is with everything else factored in)
on the damage table we count 3 
