This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
The thunderstrike gauntlet also has the ability to chuck a destroyed Monster or Vehicle at another enemy unit within 9″ to do D3 mortal wounds on a 4+. Splat!
I love it. I-LOVE-IT
I'm glad corpse chukkin, is still an option!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bull0 wrote: It's fairly clear +1a for 2 ccws is gone, going by the Q and A
Still 4 attacks on a sergent for very few points is still good. Cheap as chips is always handy.
No idea how wargear works now, but in 7e for a sergeant to have two chainswords you'd have to give up his bolter and his bolt pistol, which would be a bit... Limiting
Crusader Squad Sword Brethren and Assault Marine Sergents could get some use out of it if you're shooting for cheap CC additions.
Warhammer Community wrote:Knights players will also be happy to know they are no longer so easily bogged down by large cannon fodder units. In the new Warhammer 40,000, they can simply walk over Infantry models and leave combat while still being able to fire their weapons. They are fearsome units, indeed.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Melta's niche seems to be how reliably it can wound.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
its sounding intresting. i love heavy weapons and i cant wait to rebuild my imp fist dev squads
though im curious as to what gravs will do. i think they said it would still be really strong. also plasma. we havent seen that or missiles yet.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
I could see Multi-Meltas working well on units that can infiltrate or have forward deploy shenanigans.
LoW Detachment looks like all factions will be able to field it. Welcome Hierophant brood of awesomness (when they actually release the plastic model).
Its a total improvement on previous. Metlas previously fired minimum 1 shot and maximum 1 shot. D3 fires minimum 1, maximum 3 and average 2. Its on average twice as good as before, at best three times, and at worst exactly as before.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
Its a total improvement on previous. Metlas previously fired minimum 1 shot and maximum 1 shot. D3 fires minimum 1, maximum 3 and average 2. Its on average twice as good as before, at best three times, and at worst exactly as before.
Warhammer Community wrote:Knights players will also be happy to know they are no longer so easily bogged down by large cannon fodder units. In the new Warhammer 40,000, they can simply walk over Infantry models and leave combat while still being able to fire their weapons. They are fearsome units, indeed.
I guess Knights get the keyword "Fly" now too.
Yes, it is somewhat comical how people keep trying to rectify their perspective of the new rules with old patterns. This is new stuff, people.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Don't underestimate rend -4 and the more consistent damage. I'm too tired to do the math but extra rend and extra strength should have about the same wounding power against certain save value breakpoints. 3+ here.
Shadow Walker wrote: LoW Detachment looks like all factions will be able to field it. Welcome Hierophant brood of awesomness (when they actually release the plastic model).
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
The Q&A yesterday pretty much confirmed Invul saves work as they do now. They are an non-modifiable alternative to armour saves, not an additional save.
Warhammer Community wrote:Knights players will also be happy to know they are no longer so easily bogged down by large cannon fodder units. In the new Warhammer 40,000, they can simply walk over Infantry models and leave combat while still being able to fire their weapons. They are fearsome units, indeed.
I guess Knights get the keyword "Fly" now too.
Yes, it is somewhat comical how people keep trying to rectify their perspective of the new rules with old patterns. This is new stuff, people.
I'm wondering it "Walking Battleship" will let the Stormsurge do this too.
That said they need to be able to escape the horde for it to work so units that can carpet the table might not leave enough room for the Knight to escape combat.
Shadow Walker wrote: LoW Detachment looks like all factions will be able to field it. Welcome Hierophant brood of awesomness (when they actually release the plastic model).
So basically never then?
They are scheduled right after the plastic Thunderhawk
Its a total improvement on previous. Metlas previously fired minimum 1 shot and maximum 1 shot. D3 fires minimum 1, maximum 3 and average 2. Its on average twice as good as before, at best three times, and at worst exactly as before.
It used to be a large blast, meaning that it'd do more than one hit against most units and a functionally guaranteed hit on models above riptide or so size. You'd get a pretty predictable effect.
This way you have D3 or D6 shots which then need to roll to wound after- a much more unpredictable impact. Just because the upper bound is a lot higher doesn't mean that it's not less reliable.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
Im guessing that an invul might just be a - modifier cap. so you will ALWAYS have a 5+ invul except against mortal wounds
Be prepared to play against entirely legal, many many Wraithknight armies. Lol
Wraithknights were broken because they were severely under pointed. They claim that everything is appropriately pointed now (yeah yeah I know.... 'claim'). If that claim is true then it won't matter if you do. Another army of Baneblades will have a 50/50 chance against them (assuming even player skill).
Daedalus81 wrote: Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
I doubt it, but it's possible. Almost all AT weapons are -3 or -4 anyway and these things take a phenomenal amount of shooting to kill even with just a 5++; we're talking about ~23.1 lascannon shots, assuming 3+ to hit. That's what, 6 Land Raiders worth? If you were to use a heavy bolter instead, you're looking at 216 shots to kill - taking them on with multiple damage weapons is going to be utterly crucial. It's also an interesting challenge, as you're 100% going to be engaged in melee with these things now, as nothing will be able to kill them fast enough otherwise.
The Q&A yesterday pretty much confirmed Invul saves work as they do now. They are an non-modifiable alternative to armour saves, not an additional save.
Hmm, well, that creates an interesting dynamic - they become almost like a rend limiter.
And it looks like they get at least 4 attacks from the "destroy a knight in a single lucky round of combat."
Another important development is the Super Heavy Detachment, which has the restriction of units from the same faction. So, we've seen 4 (?) of the 14 detachments, so I'm willing to bet there are specific FOCs that restrict to faction and give a hefty command point bonus, which will give you plenty of benefit from your faction specific stratagems.
makes m beyond happy. Trygon went super heavy again like back in the day.
Hopefully it is not a Lord of war but it maybe now.
Looks like we have a lot of new things coming to use in old packaging.
Trygons are CC monsters again. No more getting killed by dreadnaughts like in 7th.
And it looks like they get at least 4 attacks from the "destroy a knight in a single lucky round of combat."
Another important development is the Super Heavy Detachment, which has the restriction of units from the same faction. So, we've seen 4 (?) of the 14 detachments, so I'm willing to bet there are specific FOCs that restrict to faction and give a hefty command point bonus, which will give you plenty of benefit from your faction specific stratagems.
makes m beyond happy. Trygon went super heavy again like back in the day.
Hopefully it is not a Lord of war but it maybe now.
Looks like we have a lot of new things coming to use in old packaging.
Trygons are CC monsters again. No more getting killed by dreadnaughts like in 7th.
Hey as long as they have a better than 6 inch movement, closer to 12. Those things really don't look like they should be so slow.
It used to be a large blast, meaning that it'd do more than one hit against most units and a functionally guaranteed hit on models above riptide or so size. You'd get a pretty predictable effect.
This way you have D3 or D6 shots which then need to roll to wound after- a much more unpredictable impact. Just because the upper bound is a lot higher doesn't mean that it's not less reliable.
You...still had to pen with your one hit. Now you're going to get an average of 1.3 hits on those riptides...and smack a 5 man terminator squad pretty handily without worrying about scatter.
Another important development is the Super Heavy Detachment, which has the restriction of units from the same faction. So, we've seen 4 (?) of the 14 detachments, so I'm willing to bet there are specific FOCs that restrict to faction and give a hefty command point bonus, which will give you plenty of benefit from your faction specific stratagems.
Well, Pete misspoke iirc and there are only 12 detachments.
Its a total improvement on previous. Metlas previously fired minimum 1 shot and maximum 1 shot. D3 fires minimum 1, maximum 3 and average 2. Its on average twice as good as before, at best three times, and at worst exactly as before.
Melta cannons were blast weapons.
And were intended to be fired against single models, ie, vehicles. They were never an anti-infantry weapon. Even vehicle squadrons you were likely only ever to get a single hit, as the coherancy for squadrons in 4" not 2, so utitlising maximum space or just the standard 2", a Large Blast was only going to hit 2 vehicles in the rarest of circumstance, and never 3. Against a single target, which was 90% of a Melta target, you now have a 1/3 chance for doing 3, 1/3 chance of 2, and 1/3 of the 1 hit you were used to.
Well, I can't say I'm much fan of 1d6 for effect being so prevalent in general, it means that games will be a lot more random and there's a significantly bigger chance of single weapons whiffing anticlimactically, doing a pittance of damage where they have potential to hit like a wrecking ball. Very swingy above and beyond the traditional hit/wound/save cycle.
On a related note, they keep repeatedly claiming that no matter what your army is, it'll be battle forged now if it was battle forged in 7th. The only way that won't prove to be a bare-faced lie at this stage is if there's a pure elite FOC, a pure fast attack FOC and a pure heavy support FOC. Otherwise it'll be impossible to approximate formation based armies such as say, a Destroyer Cult.
Verviedi wrote: I'm sure there will be a 1-LoW or 2-LoW detachment, don't worry.
Yea I bet it would be a 1-2 with 0 CP.
It's 3-5 with 3 CP.
I think you missed what was being discussed. Currently there is no way to take a single LoW so there needs to be some detachment to allow for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: Well, I can't say I'm much fan of 1d6 for effect being so prevalent in general, it means that games will be a lot more random and there's a significantly bigger chance of single weapons whiffing anticlimactically, doing a pittance of damage where they have potential to hit like a wrecking ball. Very swingy above and beyond the traditional hit/wound/save cycle.
More swingy than a lucky hit then pens and explodes an entire riptide?
On a related note, they keep repeatedly claiming that no matter what your army is, it'll be battle forged now if it was battle forged in 7th. The only way that won't prove to be a bare-faced lie at this stage is if there's a pure elite FOC, a pure fast attack FOC and a pure heavy support FOC. Otherwise it'll be impossible to approximate formation based armies such as say, a Destroyer Cult.
On a related note, they keep repeatedly claiming that no matter what your army is, it'll be battle forged now if it was battle forged in 7th. The only way that won't prove to be a bare-faced lie at this stage is if there's a pure elite FOC, a pure fast attack FOC and a pure heavy support FOC. Otherwise it'll be impossible to approximate formation based armies such as say, a Destroyer Cult.
Andy Smilie just posted this on his Twitter:
Andy Smilie wrote:4 minutes ago
That's right, this is a legal army in new 40K.
So we can play an "Assasin's Creed Brotherhood" army? Noice
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Melta's niche seems to be how reliably it can wound.
Well, more like how much damage it can do is more consistent. Las Canons will actually wound T8 and 9 targets more often, and from range at that.
On a related note, they keep repeatedly claiming that no matter what your army is, it'll be battle forged now if it was battle forged in 7th. The only way that won't prove to be a bare-faced lie at this stage is if there's a pure elite FOC, a pure fast attack FOC and a pure heavy support FOC. Otherwise it'll be impossible to approximate formation based armies such as say, a Destroyer Cult.
Well, sure an all-assassin army is legal to field - but in what format?
It's not completely crazy if there are elite-only detachments, but keep in mind that Open and Narrative play can allow very different 'legal' armies than Matched play.
On a related note, they keep repeatedly claiming that no matter what your army is, it'll be battle forged now if it was battle forged in 7th. The only way that won't prove to be a bare-faced lie at this stage is if there's a pure elite FOC, a pure fast attack FOC and a pure heavy support FOC. Otherwise it'll be impossible to approximate formation based armies such as say, a Destroyer Cult.
Andy Smilie just posted this on his Twitter:
Andy Smilie wrote:4 minutes ago
That's right, this is a legal army in new 40K.
9 assassins and 2 bits of masonry? Neat.
More seriously, if they're still elites that's interesting support for my statement.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
Your suggesting that because a 5+ is better then 0 save or 6+ that it surely need be an addition to the normal save but that isn't necessarily true. The purpose in an invuln save is to ensure a minimum chance at saving, not to worry about which guns AP is more or less useful. You may well be right, but nothing has hinted to this.
Close Combat Weapons Q: Now I am crying like a baby because you did an article on close combat weapons and didn't mention Orcs at all, no claw no Death Rolla.
A: All you need to know is that Orkz is da best and da most choppy.
Q: Could we see the profile for CSM Chain Axes? I'm really curious about Khorne Berserkers, and if you're going to bring Berserkers, you know they have to bring Chain Axes!
A: Holy Terra. Khorne Bezerkers are utterly, utterly terrifying. Perhaps the best combat unit in the game...
Q: power swords -3 ap, that seems a tad ridiculous in comparison to the power axe.
Also when comparing weapons, can we PLEASE see something that isn't space marine. i'd like to see some ork weapons. And especially if we are getting any new ones
A: Hey Shaun - we tend to show weapons that everyone knows and which most armies get the use out of. That way, it's the most easy example to relate to. While they are da best and da most choppy... not everyone knows what an 'uge choppa is like, compared, say, to a power sword.
Q: Warhammer 40,000, do pistols still give an extra attack for being an off-hand weapon, or are they now just getting the Shooting phase attacks? Still an extra attack in the turn that you charge, or does that go away, as well?
A: Well, we have shown a pistol stat line already in the Datasheet article (linked below). The pistol stat line does not say "you receive an extra attack in combat" like the chainsword does, so it is safe to assume that a bolt pistol does not give you +1 attack in combat.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/11/new-warhammer-40000-datasheetsgw-homepage-post-4/
Q: Do you still get a bonus Attack when wielding an extra close combat weapon? And if so, do Pistols still count as a CCW now that you can actually use them even when locked in CC?
A: It looks like you get an extra attack when using a chainsword, but doesn't mention it anywhere else...
Q: When using the chainsword and another, different CCW (lets say a power sword), does the wielder get to make an additional attack with the power sword, or just an additional attack with the chainsword?
A: Have a read of the chainsword's special rule again...
Knight Faction Focus Q: I just scrolled down to see if the next article would be Sisters of Battle. Seriously. We've been asking for decades for an update and plastic kits and new models. Can't we get any idea if they're getting attention in the new edition? Or does gw still hate the bolter girls?
A: No hate here, Christopher! We haven't forgotten about the Sisters of Battle at all. They will be receiving new rules support in the new edition and there will be a Faction Focus article too.
Q: So, I'd like a clarification on the heavy D* weapons.
Would they resolve like this: roll d6 to see if you hit, then roll d6 to see how many hits you get or is it roll D6 'shots' then resolve to hit for each shot?
A: It's D6 shots. You roll a D6 and then make that many "to hit" rolls.
Q: Will there be special named knights still? Obsidian Knight and such? Maybe Household rules?
A: Perhaps! We haven't seen anything about them yet... but watch this space!
Q: Superheavy detachment? I can field a Stormblade, Shadowsword and Stormlord all at the same time? In a regular game? I'm going to be so unpopular... Might need to buy a couple of Baneblades to round that off!
A: You can indeed.... they are a lot of points, of course...
Q: Will Khorne Daemonkin be getting their own faction focus article or are they lumped in with Chaos Marines and Daemons articles?
A: Michael Ryan you can absolutely use that army in the new rules. Detachments have to be made up of units that share one keyword. "Chaos" and "Khorne" are one keyword.. so you can fill your boots with making detachments of mixed Khorne stuff!
Q: So imperial knights before orks or tyranids really? You forgot those major factions?
A: The Tyranids and Orks are on the way, guys - they are not coming in the order we think they are most important, but rather the order they are written in!
Q: Can Knights be used together with imperial forces? E.g. with astartes, or astra militarum?
A: They absolutely can, yes!
Q: So What Is The Next?
A: We will have to wait and see...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Love that they made it possible to mix daemons and CSM into a single FOC without needing to do multiple detachments now.
On a related note, they keep repeatedly claiming that no matter what your army is, it'll be battle forged now if it was battle forged in 7th. The only way that won't prove to be a bare-faced lie at this stage is if there's a pure elite FOC, a pure fast attack FOC and a pure heavy support FOC. Otherwise it'll be impossible to approximate formation based armies such as say, a Destroyer Cult.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Don't underestimate rend -4 and the more consistent damage. I'm too tired to do the math but extra rend and extra strength should have about the same wounding power against certain save value breakpoints. 3+ here.
The math will come out as a wash because they are so close, one wounds more often while one does more average damage. Tells us little since people assume melta is a close range without factoring in the worse to hit roll for the likely need to move. Both will be solid, I am not gaking on the melta, I just prefer beaming my knights in the eyes from across the map from the word go
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
Your suggesting that because a 5+ is better then 0 save or 6+ that it surely need be an addition to the normal save but that isn't necessarily true. The purpose in an invuln save is to ensure a minimum chance at saving, not to worry about which guns AP is more or less useful. You may well be right, but nothing has hinted to this.
Even if the AP value doesn't negate the invul (which is still worse than their 3+ armour save), the weapons we're talking about still can be evaluated based on if you want the ability to hit the knight turn 1 (lascannons) or want more consistent damage once you start shooting it one turn 2 or later (melta).
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
The Q&A yesterday pretty much confirmed Invul saves work as they do now. They are an non-modifiable alternative to armour saves, not an additional save.
Which yet again makes las canons superior IMHO, since the ap against anything with a 5+ invuln becomes moot. Heck even a missile launcher which will likely have rend 2, leaves a knight with the exact same chance to save.
theocracity wrote: Well, sure an all-assassin army is legal to field - but in what format?
It's not completely crazy if there are elite-only detachments, but keep in mind that Open and Narrative play can allow very different 'legal' armies than Matched play.
That would be an unfortunate technicality which would annoy a lot of people. Still, they did specify battle forged, and the other two game modes are basically unbound and "we're pretending that playing to a scenario is a third game mode".
To reveal my own stake in this: I own 18 destroyers, 12 heavy destroyers and 2 destroyer lords. It's one of the gimmick armies I don't use very often because the formation bonuses make it too strong unless my opponent is also using a power build, but I'd be sad to see it go entirely.
Future War Cultist wrote: I hope they can make vanquishers into true titan killers. How would you guys do it? 72" range, strength 8, ap -3 damage 2D6 heavy 1?
Well in the past it was an ap2 long range melta gun that didn't care about half range. My guess is it will be S8 Ap-3 Damage 2D6 drop the lowest.
More seriously, if they're still elites that's interesting support for my statement.
I'm confused, is this supposed to be something people are unhappy about?
An army that's just a gang of assassins sounds awesome to me...
Honestly I don't even get how it's news since you can build an army out of Assassin detachments and any legal army in the game stays legal....
That said, considering that he's only got those few models on the table there and says it's a complete legal army....the army will still be heavily hampered by its small size unless we see some serious buffs to the assassins.
Honestly I don't even get how it's news since you can build an army out of Assassin detachments and any legal army in the game stays legal....
That said, considering that he's only got those few models on the table there and says it's a complete legal army....the army will still be heavily hampered by its small size unless we see some serious buffs to the assassins.
It's news, because it gives credence to other specific detachments that allow for the remaining unit roles.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
Your suggesting that because a 5+ is better then 0 save or 6+ that it surely need be an addition to the normal save but that isn't necessarily true. The purpose in an invuln save is to ensure a minimum chance at saving, not to worry about which guns AP is more or less useful. You may well be right, but nothing has hinted to this.
Even if the AP value doesn't negate the invul (which is still worse than their 3+ armour save), the weapons we're talking about still can be evaluated based on if you want the ability to hit the knight turn 1 (lascannons) or want more consistent damage once you start shooting it one turn 2 or later (melta).
This is what I already said.... Not sure you need to reply to EVERY post though I am impressed with your current in thread count
Honestly I don't even get how it's news since you can build an army out of Assassin detachments and any legal army in the game stays legal....
That said, considering that he's only got those few models on the table there and says it's a complete legal army....the army will still be heavily hampered by its small size unless we see some serious buffs to the assassins.
It's news, because it gives credence to other specific detachments that allow for the remaining unit roles.
Fair enough I guess. I mean we already knew that, but if it helps people sleep better at night, then fair enough.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
Your suggesting that because a 5+ is better then 0 save or 6+ that it surely need be an addition to the normal save but that isn't necessarily true. The purpose in an invuln save is to ensure a minimum chance at saving, not to worry about which guns AP is more or less useful. You may well be right, but nothing has hinted to this.
Even if the AP value doesn't negate the invul (which is still worse than their 3+ armour save), the weapons we're talking about still can be evaluated based on if you want the ability to hit the knight turn 1 (lascannons) or want more consistent damage once you start shooting it one turn 2 or later (melta).
This is what I already said.... Not sure you need to reply to EVERY post though I am impressed with your current in thread count
Eh, I was posting by tablet at the time, by the time I was done fat fingering the digital keyboard I would miss other replies that said the same thing. Now that I'm on a PC for the moment I can avoid that.
And now that you mention it, I'm surprised at how much posting I've been doing too. Filtering the thread down to my posts leaves sixteen pages (and counting) of stuff.
Honestly I don't even get how it's news since you can build an army out of Assassin detachments and any legal army in the game stays legal....
That said, considering that he's only got those few models on the table there and says it's a complete legal army....the army will still be heavily hampered by its small size unless we see some serious buffs to the assassins.
It's news, because it gives credence to other specific detachments that allow for the remaining unit roles.
Fair enough I guess. I mean we already knew that, but if it helps people sleep better at night, then fair enough.
I don't think that's a fair statement. People new of the initial three charts, this informs people of another. Furthermore the Q&A confirms that a detachment only needs share a single keyword. So key word Imperial is going to REALLY turn things into a sandbox. More so then last edition apart from unbound, only now you get command benefits, how many is still unknown though.
Honestly I don't even get how it's news since you can build an army out of Assassin detachments and any legal army in the game stays legal....
That said, considering that he's only got those few models on the table there and says it's a complete legal army....the army will still be heavily hampered by its small size unless we see some serious buffs to the assassins.
It's news, because it gives credence to other specific detachments that allow for the remaining unit roles.
Fair enough I guess. I mean we already knew that, but if it helps people sleep better at night, then fair enough.
Red Corsair wrote: This reaffirms my suspicion that I should take las canons over multimeltas, so far all the big things are turning out to be at the T8 mark meaning that 3+ to wound at double range will me much better then 4+ to wound at suicide range
Glad my Iron Warriors pack lots of lasers
I am betting even the land raider is capped at T8, though I won't be too shocked if it is uniquely sitting at 9.
Meltas remove all of their save, however, and i'm starting to think you can take both armor and invulnerable.
Why?
Because what is the point of using a -3 or -4 on 3+ armor if they are going to take their 5+ invuln anyway? Even -2 is a moot point.
Your suggesting that because a 5+ is better then 0 save or 6+ that it surely need be an addition to the normal save but that isn't necessarily true. The purpose in an invuln save is to ensure a minimum chance at saving, not to worry about which guns AP is more or less useful. You may well be right, but nothing has hinted to this.
Even if the AP value doesn't negate the invul (which is still worse than their 3+ armour save), the weapons we're talking about still can be evaluated based on if you want the ability to hit the knight turn 1 (lascannons) or want more consistent damage once you start shooting it one turn 2 or later (melta).
This is what I already said.... Not sure you need to reply to EVERY post though I am impressed with your current in thread count
Eh, I was posting by tablet at the time, by the time I was done fat fingering the digital keyboard I would miss other replies that said the same thing. Now that I'm on a PC for the moment I can avoid that.
And now that you mention it, I'm surprised at how much posting I've been doing too. Filtering the thread down to my posts leaves sixteen pages (and counting) of stuff.
I must be a little excited for the new edition.
hey I am right there with you, I have super clumsy fingers which makes my replies constantly late Also sharing the excitement with you I filtered the thread out of curiosity to see how many pages were all you, I was impressed and a bit concerned you may be turning to the dark gods...
Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
Now that the chainsword by itself does something, I'm going to have to figure out what to do with some of my Guard lol. In previous editions with Chainswords having the same effects as CCWs, I modeled a number of my Guard sergeants so that are carrying binoculars and shovels instead of the typical chainswords.
Outside of a tournaments though I don't see it being a problem, as I can simply say "if they're not carrying a power weapon, it's a 'chainsword'"
Grinshanks wrote: Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
Since we haven't seen a single ork weapon profile thats literally impossible to say. Just wait, for all you know PK are different then PF's PLUS you have no idea what killsawz or any of the plethera of other weapons do.
Honestly I don't even get how it's news since you can build an army out of Assassin detachments and any legal army in the game stays legal....
That said, considering that he's only got those few models on the table there and says it's a complete legal army....the army will still be heavily hampered by its small size unless we see some serious buffs to the assassins.
It's news, because it gives credence to other specific detachments that allow for the remaining unit roles.
Fair enough I guess. I mean we already knew that, but if it helps people sleep better at night, then fair enough.
I don't think that's a fair statement. People new of the initial three charts, this informs people of another. Furthermore the Q&A confirms that a detachment only needs share a single keyword. So key word Imperial is going to REALLY turn things into a sandbox. More so then last edition apart from unbound, only now you get command benefits, how many is still unknown though.
I guess I was the only one who was expecting this from what they've been telling us for a while then? I mean, just to pull from their FAQ and the Battle Forged articles:
FAQ wrote:Is my army still valid?
Yes, it certainly is! You’ll still be able to use your army in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. All current armies will be supported with new rules.
Single FOC armies will still be valid, as are pretty much anything else you run.
Battle Forged Armies wrote:If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions. These are flexible enough that all of your current forces can be fit into them to form a Battle-forged army.
Again, nothing that is legal now will become invalidated.
Battle Forged Armies wrote:The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example).
Sharing keywords is how you ally inside of a single FOC.
So yeah, the latest FAQ livestream and this tweet only helped confirm things we were already told. I've got several Q&A posts by Facebook that say the same thing about armies being invalidated too (to include one about Khorne Daemonkin staying legal because they share keywords ("Chaos" and "Khorne") even though they aren't getting a detachment for it.
hey I am right there with you, I have super clumsy fingers which makes my replies constantly late Also sharing the excitement with you I filtered the thread out of curiosity to see how many pages were all you, I was impressed and a bit concerned you may be turning to the dark gods...
Well my armies in 5th were (in order) Nids, Plague Marines, Sisters.
So really it'd be going back to the Dark Gods. And honestly as I've been wanting something aimed a little more towards assault, it's tempting to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grinshanks wrote: Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
Power Klaws might work differently than the Power Fist now. We really just don't know enough to say yet.
But considering they changed the Trygon to give the Nids something that can potentially wreck a Knight in melee, I can bet the Orks have something in their dirty xenos hands that'll do the job.
Grinshanks wrote: Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
Sounds to me like Orks should be slapping on every deffroller and wrecking ball in town.
Grinshanks wrote: Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
Sounds to me like Orks should be slapping on every deffroller and wrecking ball in town.
Kneecapping a knight by ramming it with a Deff Rolla does sound pretty Orky.
On a related note, they keep repeatedly claiming that no matter what your army is, it'll be battle forged now if it was battle forged in 7th. The only way that won't prove to be a bare-faced lie at this stage is if there's a pure elite FOC, a pure fast attack FOC and a pure heavy support FOC. Otherwise it'll be impossible to approximate formation based armies such as say, a Destroyer Cult.
Grinshanks wrote: Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
Sounds to me like Orks should be slapping on every deffroller and wrecking ball in town.
Thats something every ork player should of been doing regardless of edition that gak is cool.
oh man how exciting. maybe even killa kans will be worth a damn
Grinshanks wrote: Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
Grinshanks wrote: Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
Sounds to me like Orks should be slapping on every deffroller and wrecking ball in town.
Kneecapping a knight by ramming it with a Deff Rolla does sound pretty Orky.
If everything can hurt everything, you could just bury anything with weight of numbers and sheer number of CC attacks rolled. There is no 'cannot hurt' anymore, only 'it's pretty difficult'. Up the dice pool, even the odds, go for it!
JohnnyHell wrote: If everything can hurt everything, you could just bury anything with weight of numbers and sheer number of CC attacks rolled. There is no 'cannot hurt' anymore, only 'it's pretty difficult'. Up the dice pool, even the odds, go for it!
Orks ARE the masters of having more dice than models on the table.
I genuinely hope I'm wrong but I'm worried that this new ruleset and all the rules interactions will turn every "big" thing into the 7th edition equivalent of fighting a wraithknight. It's hard to tell without seeing the full rules in play but my gut says that combat will be a frustrating slog of chipping away slowly at wounds barring a lucky very random d6 roll for damage. I suspect that will be the big complaint in a year or two.
I quit 40k in 3rd Edition I think and hated everything from 4th to 7th. gak game honestly.
Most of 8th changes seem smart so far. Good think I am already building a Raging Heroes Iron Empire Sisters of Battle Army
I also can't wait. Recently got a great deal on a bunch of Repentias. Curious if they and penitent engines, arco-flagellents, death cult, could make a bit of a decent CC punch with new rules. For us sisters players, this whole thing is real exciting
I quit 40k in 3rd Edition I think and hated everything from 4th to 7th. gak game honestly.
Most of 8th changes seem smart so far. Good think I am already building a Raging Heroes Iron Empire Sisters of Battle Army
I also can't wait. Recently got a great deal on a bunch of Repentias. Curious if they and penitent engines, arco-flagellents, death cult, could make a bit of a decent CC punch with new rules. For us sisters players, this whole thing is real exciting
I'm actually thinking Eviscerators on Sisters might have lost something in how they work. -1 to hit vs going last is a fine trade, but losing the extra D6 of damage means you can't rely on them to carve things in half.
They're sure to be useful against units like Terminators and the like, but I'm going to miss cleaving Land Raiders in half with them.
I quit 40k in 3rd Edition I think and hated everything from 4th to 7th. gak game honestly.
Most of 8th changes seem smart so far. Good think I am already building a Raging Heroes Iron Empire Sisters of Battle Army
I also can't wait. Recently got a great deal on a bunch of Repentias. Curious if they and penitent engines, arco-flagellents, death cult, could make a bit of a decent CC punch with new rules. For us sisters players, this whole thing is real exciting
I'm actually thinking Eviscerators on Sisters might have lost something in how they work. -1 to hit vs going last is a fine trade, but losing the extra D6 of damage means you can't rely on them to carve things in half.
They're sure to be useful against units like Terminators and the like, but I'm going to miss cleaving Land Raiders in half with them.
At least they should be a LOT faster, right?
Yea, well have to wait and see. New tactics though have opened up. Im thinking a rhino/repressor with a battle sister squad AND a repentia squad.
I do like the fluff that old marines can become Primaris, let's our old favorite heroes live on with moar powah.
Wait, wut?
Source?
The Q&A they did early (really early) this morning for us Australians.
The said that the process to create Primaris Marines isn't just growing them in test tubes, but also can follow the current way Space Marines are made on top of also being used to upgrade existing Marines.
I think massed Power Klaw attacks will mince vehicles juts fine. Light Vehicles are mince for sure, and even something like a Russ is going to bothered by a handful of Klaws. It isn't going to be the auto-boom it used to be in HtH, but I think that was sort of the point of the changes to the vehicle rules.
You're looking at something like 12-14 hits (2 Sv, 6 wounds doing an average of 2 each) from S8 Klaws on average to kill a Russ, and less for Klaws on S5 dudes like a Warboss. Keep in mind that Burnas mangle armour in CC too, and there's a lot of random dakka in an Ork Army that can now be counted on to add a wound here and a wound there in a pinch. I don't think it'll be any more of an issue than it is currently anyway.
*edit* the above is assuming a PF line, and Klaws could easily be a little better than that.
I do like the fluff that old marines can become Primaris, let's our old favorite heroes live on with moar powah.
Wait, wut?
Source?
The Q&A they did early (really early) this morning for us Australians.
The said that the process to create Primaris Marines isn't just growing them in test tubes, but also can follow the current way Space Marines are made on top of also being used to upgrade existing Marines.
It's like some wonder-elixir or something.
So Primaris marines are just marines on Red Bull?
Only the Blood Angels ones. Because, you know Red Bull gives you wings. Everyone else is clearly chugging down BFCs of Monster. The green dye is what makes it super!
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
mrhappyface wrote:Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Did 40k ever get rules for all the Bloodthirster variants?
ClockworkZion wrote:3 Lords of Skulls?
Just had a thought: at least they don't cap at 10 attacks anymore if you can still heal their wounds with a Warpsmith...
They could build it into the damage table quite easily. Pretty sure there's an AoS unit that gains better stats as it takes damage.
mrhappyface wrote:Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Did 40k ever get rules for all the Bloodthirster variants?
warboss wrote: I genuinely hope I'm wrong but I'm worried that this new ruleset and all the rules interactions will turn every "big" thing into the 7th edition equivalent of fighting a wraithknight. It's hard to tell without seeing the full rules in play but my gut says that combat will be a frustrating slog of chipping away slowly at wounds barring a lucky very random d6 roll for damage. I suspect that will be the big complaint in a year or two.
It feels like armies won't be able to just bring light-arms or Str 6 shooting. Heavy weaponry will be a must in 8th ed. I suspect, though, that close combat will be particularly deadly and be an effective way to take down heavies - d3 and d6 wounds per attack could be deadly. A simple powerfist does d3 wounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Calling Mortarian. He had an old model in Epic. Also fits with the imminent Death Guard release and their potential to be included in the starter.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Possibly. I mean there are some things from the End Times that could easilly slip over to being normal 40k stuff with little to no change.
Some of them make good Cultist models for CSM too.
mrhappyface wrote:Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Did 40k ever get rules for all the Bloodthirster variants?
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Chaos is a given, so my money is on some of the Tzeentch Arcanite stuff - Gaunt Summoner and/or Ogroid Thaumaturge would both work fine alongside Tzeentch Daemons and Thousand Sons.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Glotkin? My bet is on something demonic from the ET.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Chaos is a given, so my money is on some of the Tzeentch Arcanite stuff - Gaunt Summoner and/or Ogroid Thaumaturge would both work fine alongside Tzeentch Daemons and Thousand Sons.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Chaos is a given, so my money is on some of the Tzeentch Arcanite stuff - Gaunt Summoner and/or Ogroid Thaumaturge would both work fine alongside Tzeentch Daemons and Thousand Sons.
Actually that's probably it. The Tzaangors are in both games, so it was honestly weird the elite Tzaangors didn't get 40k rules.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Calling Mortarian. He had an old model in Epic. Also fits with the imminent Death Guard release and their potential to be included in the starter.
Doubtful. For one, they said "is NOT a new model" and two, an Epic Model is both OOP AND out of scale with the entire rest of the game.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Where is this posted at?
zamerion wrote:
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
Slaughterbrute would look kinda odd with all those medieval swords, but the Mutalith would be the most obvious choice if they're really gonna import a Fantasy monster.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something: Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Where is this posted at?
Spoiler:
zamerion wrote:
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something: Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Where do you see? i dont see it on facebook
Not posted, confirmed in Twitch stream.
So during the Dark Eldar versus Grey Knights match? Or the earlier Blood Angels versus Tyranid match?
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Chaos is a given, so my money is on some of the Tzeentch Arcanite stuff - Gaunt Summoner and/or Ogroid Thaumaturge would both work fine alongside Tzeentch Daemons and Thousand Sons.
Actually that's probably it. The Tzaangors are in both games, so it was honestly weird the elite Tzaangors didn't get 40k rules.
Slaughterbrute would look kinda odd with all those medieval swords, but the Mutalith would be the most obvious choice if they're really gonna import a Fantasy monster.
It wouldn't look that odd, since the swords stuck into it are ritual blades for controlling the beast...
Is worth mentioning that the Slaughterbrute/Mutalith is currently "Temporarily Out of Stock", so it might be getting reboxed.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Chaos is a given, so my money is on some of the Tzeentch Arcanite stuff - Gaunt Summoner and/or Ogroid Thaumaturge would both work fine alongside Tzeentch Daemons and Thousand Sons.
Actually that's probably it. The Tzaangors are in both games, so it was honestly weird the elite Tzaangors didn't get 40k rules.
Chaos Warhounds.
And I don't mean the Titan.
They were in the 3.5 codex, so fail at the "not able to play in 40K before" part of the sentence.
Given the GW picture floating around at the beginning of the year showing Tzaangor and Thousand Sons and the caption "One army, Two Games", I'm leaning the various disc riding Tzaangor.
I'm starting to think mixing shooting and charging a unit might be the best option for the new edition to force extra casualties in the Battle Shock phase.
Mostly because it doesn't look like shooting or melee alone can delete units as effectively as it used to.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Where is this posted at?
Spoiler:
zamerion wrote:
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Where do you see?
i dont see it on facebook
Not posted, confirmed in Twitch stream.
So during the Dark Eldar versus Grey Knights match? Or the earlier Blood Angels versus Tyranid match?
DE vs GK.
They also said something about some new Ork stuff, I only caught the end but it seemed like they were talking about something big (I believe some people were talking about Primarch level Orks?) although I'm not entirely sure.
changemod wrote: Faction Xenos keyword would mean you could make a single detachment out of a T'aunar, a Revenant Titan and a Hierophant.
Wraithknight, Stormsurge and a Gorkanaught.
No idea why you toned it down.
Actually you can take up to 5 so add a Stompa and a Pylon to my original post.
...
...God I hope pylons can shoot ground targets again, I converted mine in the weeks leading up to 7th and never got to play it before the Skyfire nerf made it useless.
changemod wrote: Faction Xenos keyword would mean you could make a single detachment out of a T'aunar, a Revenant Titan and a Hierophant.
Wraithknight, Stormsurge and a Gorkanaught.
No idea why you toned it down.
Actually you can take up to 5 so add a Stompa and a Pylon to my original post.
...
...God I hope pylons can shoot ground targets again, I converted mine in the weeks leading up to 7th and never got to play it before the Skyfire nerf made it useless.
rollawaythestone wrote: It feels like armies won't be able to just bring light-arms or Str 6 shooting. Heavy weaponry will be a must in 8th ed. I suspect, though, that close combat will be particularly deadly and be an effective way to take down heavies - d3 and d6 wounds per attack could be deadly. A simple powerfist does d3 wounds.
"could" be deadly is the key for me and I'm talking about the dedicated anti-armor weapons and not the chip-chip-chip-away hull point str 6 spam of this generation. It feels too swingy. Your lascannon only is a real anti-armor weapon on a damage roll of a 6 versus alot of tough vehicles... otherwise it's not too much better than the autocannon. I don't mind close combat with some weapons being a viable option but I'm worried it'll be the only viable option given some of the calculations in this thread. Having a Str 8 -3 save powerfist that gets d3 on every attack sure does knock the pants off of a lascannon in terms of chances to kill. It's the idea of an entire squad of lascannons in a dev squad or heavy weapons team not being able to reliably kill a single medium armor vehicle that worries me let alone the real heavies and superheavies. YMMV.
rollawaythestone wrote: It feels like armies won't be able to just bring light-arms or Str 6 shooting. Heavy weaponry will be a must in 8th ed. I suspect, though, that close combat will be particularly deadly and be an effective way to take down heavies - d3 and d6 wounds per attack could be deadly. A simple powerfist does d3 wounds.
"could" be deadly is the key for me and I'm talking about the dedicated anti-armor weapons and not the chip-chip-chip-away hull point str 6 spam of this generation. It feels too swingy. Your lascannon only is a real anti-armor weapon on a damage roll of a 6 versus alot of tough vehicles... otherwise it's not too much better than the autocannon. I don't mind close combat with some weapons being a viable option but I'm worried it'll be the only viable option given some of the calculations in this thread. Having a Str 8 -3 save powerfist that gets d3 on every attack sure does knock the pants off of a lascannon in terms of chances to kill. It's the idea of an entire squad of lascannons in a dev squad or heavy weapons team not being able to reliably kill a single medium armor vehicle that worries me let alone the real heavies and superheavies. YMMV.
I'm not sure if that is the only tool in your tool box tho. We already know pyschic powers have the ability to inflict moral wounds. The fact combi weapons are no longer one shot is also a big deal since it means tac squads can carry two melta-guns. We also now have multi-melta's that can fire on the move and only suffer -1 to hit instead of +6 snap fire.
The flip side of this, is that you can no longer drop pod in the back of a super-heavy with the melta suicide vet squad to kill it in the 1st turn. Vechiles in general seem to have gotten tougher, but now more things can hurt them reliably.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
So does Forge World have any 'Horus Heresy only' models which would make sense to be brought into 40k for the Primaris Space Marines?
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
So does Forge World have any 'Horus Heresy only' models which would make sense to be brought into 40k for the Primaris Space Marines?
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
So does Forge World have any 'Horus Heresy only' models which would make sense to be brought into 40k for the Primaris Space Marines?
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
So does Forge World have any 'Horus Heresy only' models which would make sense to be brought into 40k for the Primaris Space Marines?
I doubt it'll be a resin model.
Wouldn't be the first time a Forge World resin model showed up in plastic.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
So does Forge World have any 'Horus Heresy only' models which would make sense to be brought into 40k for the Primaris Space Marines?
Ooh! Spartan Assault tank?
I'd back that. Or maybe they'll make a new tank that's a hybrid of the Spartan and the Land Raider in the spirit of the Mark X power armor. One with a nice trademark friendly name.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
So does Forge World have any 'Horus Heresy only' models which would make sense to be brought into 40k for the Primaris Space Marines?
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
So does Forge World have any 'Horus Heresy only' models which would make sense to be brought into 40k for the Primaris Space Marines?
I doubt it'll be a resin model.
Wouldn't be the first time a Forge World resin model showed up in plastic.
True, but they said "existing model" and "never before playable in 40k". All the HH stuff was loosely playable with 40k, even if it was heavilly suggested not to (for example, as a way to show early run ins with Eldar, Orks or Dark Eldar during the Great Crusade) so that might violate the latter half, but existing model definitely kills the first. I'd be looking at stuff like the Glotkin to make a porting over rather than exoecting a resin model to be making the jump.
Some of the Chaos stuff fits both games rather nicely and could be an expansion on our current Cultist choice for example.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
So does Forge World have any 'Horus Heresy only' models which would make sense to be brought into 40k for the Primaris Space Marines?
I doubt it'll be a resin model.
My $$$ is on Mortarion.
Not likely. We'll probably see him in the next campaign if anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just a thought...but isn't it possible that the scythe we saw in the leaks was for Typhon, or another of Mortarion's bodyguards? I mean putting unique characters into a starter box wouldn't be a first for them.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something: Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Chaos is a given, so my money is on some of the Tzeentch Arcanite stuff - Gaunt Summoner and/or Ogroid Thaumaturge would both work fine alongside Tzeentch Daemons and Thousand Sons.
Actually that's probably it. The Tzaangors are in both games, so it was honestly weird the elite Tzaangors didn't get 40k rules.
Chaos Warhounds.
And I don't mean the Titan.
They were in the 3.5 codex, so fail at the "not able to play in 40K before" part of the sentence.
To be fair, that wasn't as a unit. Chaos Hounds were a wargear option for Chaos Lords.
As far as I'm seeing, they were never a unit of their own option. Chaos had Furies(Harpies), Flesh Hounds, and Screamers as a Fast Attack option--but no Hounds.
I mean, that doesn't automatically mean it's what has to be the case...but fleshy mutant warbeasts are something we've had crop up rather often in Chaos related lore, at least for Undivided.
Given the GW picture floating around at the beginning of the year showing Tzaangor and Thousand Sons and the caption "One army, Two Games", I'm leaning the various disc riding Tzaangor.
Yeah, but that also included Daemons of Tzeentch and the Lord of Change too--but not the disc riding ones as far as I remember.
There are quite a bit of FW's Horus Heresy models that are not currently usable in 40K; most of the Mechanicum stuff and Custodes' gravtanks for example.
ClockworkZion wrote: Considering they said "existing model" I am personally rejecting any notions of resin anything being ported over.
For all we know the Stormcast are the ones in question who,ll get to jump dimensions and fight for the God-Emperor.
Had a thought just now...
Maybe it's the Bonesplitters?
Savage Orks have been a thing for a long while in 40k, but never really been represented with models...
I would krump some heads for Feral Orks in 40k getting support.
Snakebites would be an awesome surprise
Hm...they person eho brought this up did mention Orks were being discussed too. I hope these things are linked and not coincidence.
I mean I can see a lot of room for Chaos to bring stuff over to make a Chaos Cultist subfaction but this is more important to me. Feral zorks are always a project that I wanted to do but never let myself commit to for some reason.
Yeah they just came out with new Custodes stuff, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they just got 40k rules considering they seem to be a big deal in the Crusade right now.
Requizen wrote: Yeah they just came out with new Custodes stuff, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they just got 40k rules considering they seem to be a big deal in the Crusade right now.
GW said FW is handling all the FW models so I don't know if we can really count on anything there at the moment.
Grinshanks wrote: Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
I suggest waiting until all the rules are released before QQing.
Remember, all of your boys get a chance to wound targets like annihilation barges. Some quick 'back of the napkin' mathhammer shows that a squad of 12 boys in a truuk assaulting a barge will do ~6 wounds to it.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
So does Forge World have any 'Horus Heresy only' models which would make sense to be brought into 40k for the Primaris Space Marines?
I doubt it'll be a resin model.
My $$$ is on Mortarion.
Ding mortarion was an epic model
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: There are quite a bit of FW's Horus Heresy models that are not currently usable in 40K; most of the Mechanicum stuff and Custodes' gravtanks for example.
FW does have a. NEw IA book they have already worked on and delayed for I believe 8th.
The disk riding tzanngors are probably the best bet. They said existing model. So it can't be plastic FW or mortarian because that would be a new model.
Requizen wrote: Yeah they just came out with new Custodes stuff, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they just got 40k rules considering they seem to be a big deal in the Crusade right now.
GW said FW is handling all the FW models so I don't know if we can really count on anything there at the moment.
40k custodes and sisters of silence are a little lackluster though. Right now, they have what 2 actual kits? Porting some 30k Custodes stuff wouldn't hurt much. Of course the real problem is more about custodes either needing more infantry model kits or needing to be rolled into some other codex.
labmouse42 wrote:
Grinshanks wrote: Now that PowerFists are no longer any good for anti armour (D3 reeeeeeeally won't cut it), is it all but guaranteed Orks will have nothing to effectively deal with vehicles?
I suggest waiting until all the rules are released before QQing.
Remember, all of your boys get a chance to wound targets like annihilation barges. Some quick 'back of the napkin' mathhammer shows that a squad of 12 boys in a truuk assaulting a barge will do ~6 wounds to it.
the changes to power fists make a lot of units a lot better though. I'm excited to run power fists on all of my squad champions in 8ed. Also, this makes chaos termicide units a thing again.
Pretty much. But 7th's Wound Pools and take from the front mechanics are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That didn't really need cracking. The older "we assume soldiers move forward to fill gaps in firing line, take up dropped heavy weapons, etc" rationale that's essentially coming back is fine by me. I can get behind that.
JohnnyHell wrote: Pretty much. But 7th's Wound Pools and take from the front mechanics are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The older "we assume soldiers move forward to fill gaps in firing line, take up dropped heavy weapons, etc" rationale that's essentially coming back is fine by me. I can get behind that.
Having a Knight play as roughly two Leman Russes seems decent enough. Also worth noting that it takes 18 wounds to produce what almost amounts to a mission kill - A Knight hitting on 5s and moving 6" isn't very scary. That is... ...hmm... about 200 heavy bolter shots at BS 3, or about 24 Lascannon shots.
Knights will also murderate any characters they run into.
Lol, it's the day we've all been secretly waiting for.
Seriously. They look more like Squats than fantasy dwarfs.
I'd also be perfectly okay with that. Just do like Chaos Daemons and give us rules for both games.
Please don't give me a reason to buy them. I am having a hard enough time as is.
They have the most dapper model in both games. That alone is a reason to buy them.
I see them as what happens when Dwarves are forced to stop mining mountians and start mining clouds. On a gas giant. In spaaaaaaaaaace.
Basically if Squats escaped Nids by changing what dimension they hid in I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kestral wrote: Having a Knight play as roughly two Leman Russes seems decent enough. Also worth noting that it takes 18 wounds to produce what almost amounts to a mission kill - A Knight hitting on 5s and moving 6" isn't very scary. That is... ...hmm... about 200 heavy bolter shots at BS 3, or about 24 Lascannon shots.
Knights will also murderate any characters they run into.
Unless Trygon Primes are characters, then some characters will murderlate them...
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
“Roboute Guilliman gathered his new armada. Along with elements of the Adeptus Custodes, a small contingent of the Silent Sisterhood, and a vast war host of Primaris Space Marines from many newly founded Chapters, the Primarch set a winding course. Strike forces from over a dozen pre-existing Chapters of Space Marines, led by the Imperial Fists, joined the fleet."
So, contingents (strike forces) from 12 existing chapters and a "vast war host of Primaris Space Marines from many newly founded Chapters," 12K is not a "vast host", nor is it "many newly founded Chapters".
I hesitate to even guess what "vast host" would be in the current 40K universe; 20,000, 50,000, 100,000, a million? We are talking a second Great Crusade here. Some numbers from the first Great Crusade from the Warhammer 40k wiki: "At its peak in the early 31st Millennium, some 203 standard years after it began, there were 4,287 primary Expedition Fleets engaged upon the business of enforcing Imperial Compliance and extending the Imperial aegis across the galaxy as well as 60,000+ secondary deployment groups involved in regulating Compliance or Imperial occupations. A further 372 Expedition Fleets were regrouping or refitting in the Sol System or other Imperial hub star systems or resupplying as they awaited new orders."
JohnnyHell wrote: Pretty much. But 7th's Wound Pools and take from the front mechanics are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The older "we assume soldiers move forward to fill gaps in firing line, take up dropped heavy weapons, etc" rationale that's essentially coming back is fine by me. I can get behind that.
yeah, that make some sense
I see benefits to both systems. We can assume in fluff people will take up fallen weapons and necessary leader roles, but at the same time you can place your good weapons closer if you wanted them that way and therefore placement is not key anymore. It makes Meat Shields feel even more like Meat Shields.
That said I haven't played like that in awhile and will embrace the change with open arms.
Agreed, Kharadrons could have been squats. They'd have to come up with a better excuse for flight than aether-gold though. I wouldn't even accept that in Old World. Only the high fantasy of the broken realms (whatever they're called) makes that palatable.
I was thinking some more about assault weapons. I can't see anything in the AOS rules about getting extra attacks for two weapons, and what we've been told so far seems to confirm that for 40k. So the inherent penalty of two-handed weapons is removed - you'll be able to fire your pistol and strike with a two handed weapon. So what penalty are they going to institute on those? Another -1 to hit?
Regarding the super-heavies and their ilk, I'm not panicking, but I'm certainly not getting the feeling that they'll be enjoyable to play against. Only time will tell on that one.
To put that another way, I still don't feel like their presence on the table is justified in this scale, and now we have odd-looking rule changes (SvT) specifically to accommodate them. I've been doing some math-hammer, and it seems to me that the power maul is never the best option. If I got the math right, then hopefully GW spotted the same thing and made it cheaper than the other options.
And on the topic of casualty removal. I think every system I've seen has flaws. We're just returning to the hidden-powerfist flaw.
Zustiur wrote: I was thinking some more about assault weapons. I can't see anything in the AOS rules about getting extra attacks for two weapons....
In Age of Sigmar, you attack with all of your weapons. The only time that's not the case is if you have two identical weapons per the Age of Sigmar FAQ
Q: What happens if I have two of the same weapon? Do I double the number of attacks made by the weapon?
A: If models are armed with identical weapons they do not double the number of attacks, but will usually gain an extra ability instead.
“Roboute Guilliman gathered his new armada. Along with elements of the Adeptus Custodes, a small contingent of the Silent Sisterhood, and a vast war host of Primaris Space Marines from many newly founded Chapters, the Primarch set a winding course. Strike forces from over a dozen pre-existing Chapters of Space Marines, led by the Imperial Fists, joined the fleet."
So, contingents (strike forces) from 12 existing chapters and a "vast war host of Primaris Space Marines from many newly founded Chapters," 12K is not a "vast host", nor is it "many newly founded Chapters".
I hesitate to even guess what "vast host" would be in the current 40K universe; 20,000, 50,000, 100,000, a million? We are talking a second Great Crusade here. Some numbers from the first Great Crusade from the Warhammer 40k wiki: "At its peak in the early 31st Millennium, some 203 standard years after it began, there were 4,287 primary Expedition Fleets engaged upon the business of enforcing Imperial Compliance and extending the Imperial aegis across the galaxy as well as 60,000+ secondary deployment groups involved in regulating Compliance or Imperial occupations. A further 372 Expedition Fleets were regrouping or refitting in the Sol System or other Imperial hub star systems or resupplying as they awaited new orders."
T
People are just pulling numbers out of the air. Going off old fluff of 1,000 (aka "Legion") a chapter most likely. Now we know RG is rewriting the codex. Maybe RG is going off old chapter numbers? Maybe he is doubling the old 30k chapter numbers? In FW fluff it says (for 30k) "there was no fixed number of how many Chapters, Battalions, Companies, and Squads a Legion would contain." & "The Legions were massive armies, and the size of each could vary tremendously. A precise number was never truly achieved " Raven Guard had 80,000 and Ultra 250,000 and all the other chapters were some place in between....Millions, or billions.....Who's to say.
Zustiur wrote: Agreed, Kharadrons could have been squats. They'd have to come up with a better excuse for flight than aether-gold though. I wouldn't even accept that in Old World. Only the high fantasy of the broken realms (whatever they're called) makes that palatable.
I was thinking some more about assault weapons. I can't see anything in the AOS rules about getting extra attacks for two weapons, and what we've been told so far seems to confirm that for 40k. So the inherent penalty of two-handed weapons is removed - you'll be able to fire your pistol and strike with a two handed weapon. So what penalty are they going to institute on those? Another -1 to hit?
Regarding the super-heavies and their ilk, I'm not panicking, but I'm certainly not getting the feeling that they'll be enjoyable to play against. Only time will tell on that one.
To put that another way, I still don't feel like their presence on the table is justified in this scale, and now we have odd-looking rule changes (SvT) specifically to accommodate them. I've been doing some math-hammer, and it seems to me that the power maul is never the best option. If I got the math right, then hopefully GW spotted the same thing and made it cheaper than the other options.
And on the topic of casualty removal. I think every system I've seen has flaws. We're just returning to the hidden-powerfist flaw.
It's not a flaw IMO. Powerfists were a joke with Challenges since there were plenty of AP2 melee weapons that could swing at initiative. Now they are able to help armies bring down these 20+ wound units. It's good game design when everything has a useful purpose.
“Roboute Guilliman gathered his new armada. Along with elements of the Adeptus Custodes, a small contingent of the Silent Sisterhood, and a vast war host of Primaris Space Marines from many newly founded Chapters, the Primarch set a winding course. Strike forces from over a dozen pre-existing Chapters of Space Marines, led by the Imperial Fists, joined the fleet."
So, contingents (strike forces) from 12 existing chapters and a "vast war host of Primaris Space Marines from many newly founded Chapters," 12K is not a "vast host", nor is it "many newly founded Chapters".
I hesitate to even guess what "vast host" would be in the current 40K universe; 20,000, 50,000, 100,000, a million? We are talking a second Great Crusade here. Some numbers from the first Great Crusade from the Warhammer 40k wiki: "At its peak in the early 31st Millennium, some 203 standard years after it began, there were 4,287 primary Expedition Fleets engaged upon the business of enforcing Imperial Compliance and extending the Imperial aegis across the galaxy as well as 60,000+ secondary deployment groups involved in regulating Compliance or Imperial occupations. A further 372 Expedition Fleets were regrouping or refitting in the Sol System or other Imperial hub star systems or resupplying as they awaited new orders."
T
People are just pulling numbers out of the air. Going off old fluff of 1,000 (aka "Legion") a chapter most likely. Now we know RG is rewriting the codex. Maybe RG is going off old chapter numbers? Maybe he is doubling the old 30k chapter numbers? In FW fluff it says (for 30k) "there was no fixed number of how many Chapters, Battalions, Companies, and Squads a Legion would contain." & "The Legions were massive armies, and the size of each could vary tremendously. A precise number was never truly achieved " Raven Guard had 80,000 and Ultra 250,000 and all the other chapters were some place in between....Millions, or billions.....Who's to say.
Let's hope not, a part of the reason for making the chapters was never letting someone get the powers that Horus had again.
1000 marines going AWOL is better than 10,000
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
Unless Trygon Primes are characters, then some characters will murderlate them...
Given that Knights have 4 attacks that hit on 3+ and do a flat 6 wounds. I think its a safe bet that the one that charged has a much better chance of walking away.
From the sound of the Q&A, that seems like more of a background thing - Primaris marines can either be vat-grown, or recruited as normal, or converted from normal Marines
So you could, conceivably, have Marneus Calgar undergo the Primaris process
That's some serious fething HGH!
But it then creates the "why not do all of them?" problem, along with non-codex-compliant chapters like Space Wolves "We gave Ragnarok Squad a shot of the new tonic, but then we had to agree to follow the new rules and take their missile launcher and meltagun away from them."
I mean, I'm absolutely on board with the new models, and willing to accept or sort-of accept various parts of the new fluff in my headcanon, but this really does throw up some more ...odd choices to try and accept.
Azazelx wrote:He's also on a 40mm base rather than a 32mm, and he has a CCW/Power Sword, so he's a fancy-something.
Red helmets in the Ultramarines denote Sergeants, White denotes Veteran status. Red and White is typically a Veteran Sergeant, unless Guilliman changed that portion of the Codex heraldry guide when he woke up. His armour also is no where near bling enough to be a captain of GW's new lovechild. He's at best a Veteran Sergeant with a wider base to accomodate his wide pose.
I'm aware of all of that. However, Vet Sergeants in the UM don't have blue helms with multiple stripes. They have red with a white stripe. We've also been told that these new-tac squads only have bolters and even seen the dataslate for them - so no power swords - so he's clearly not a Vet Sergeant. I will agree that he's not blinged enough for a Captain. Perhaps they're bringing back Marine Lieutenants from RT/30k Legion Delegatus in 40k Primaris form? I mean, pretty much always needing the company Captain to lead 20 or 30 guys since they did away with the lower-ranking officers always seems a bit stupid.
Fair enough. And I'll go with that even if they had enough HGH to embigggen all of the marines that having enough armour ready to go puts a reasonable logistical buffer on it. Leaving the squad weapon loadout issue the main one there for me. Of course, you have to agree to the new rules and sign the EULA to get some Primaris marines, but I can't see that stopping individualistic chapters like the Wolves from handing marines who were already loyal-to-the-chapter Space Wolves back their Missile Launchers and Plasma Guns the moment they leave the meeting with Cawl or Guilliman to go battle some Thousand Sons or Orks...
Or a Chainsword. How can they possibly be a Space Wolf and not have at least a Chainsword for Melee. Might as well leave them painted blue when you field them next to Space Wolves if you can't give them melee weapons. Next thing you will tell me is that they don't drink either...
ALL of the AOS rules are online for us to look at, and gain insights from. While something will clearly be different - there are a lot of ...clues...in there.
For example, from the Orruk rules...
Choppas: Wielding two weapons gives an Orruk a better chance of landing a blow.
You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for a model attacking with two Choppas.
Are 40k orks going to get this? Don't know, but it is a possibility.
While I think we might get the two choppa thing, here is their mob rule - I doubt this will come over, but you never know.
Mob Rule: Orruks make 1 extra attack with their melee weapons if their unit has 20 or more models.
Again, the AOS rules have been very close on a lot of things so far...check them out.
I figure the Vet Sergeant fancy pants is a (cheap, basic entry level kina guy) "HQ" character to allow players who want the All Primaris army that they say is possible with the new edition. Most likely the Hero for the whole VS Death Guard back story with the starter set.
I rebember in one of the Q&A, the developpers said that the days of a hail of bullets magically hitting only the guy with a stormshield were over. It doesn't seems like it is the case, since i see nothing in the current rules that prevent that from happening
Crazyterran wrote: All my Grey Knights being armed with Swords suddenly seems less silly...
D3 wounds at -3 ap? Niiice.
Don't forget that every squad is likely to have psychic powers and they will most likely be derived from either sanctic daemonology or the custom powers they had in 5th/6th edition. Which means a good chance of relatively easy access to a strength boost for making those swords really hurt.
streetsamurai wrote: I rebember in one of the Q&A, the developpers said that the days of a hail of bullets magically hitting only the guy with a stormshield were over. It doesn't seems like it is the case, since i see nothing in the current rules that prevent that from happening
How would you do that now? No characters in units and no mixed armor saves. You can avoid having a character being shot at, but now if i want to shoot at a unit, nothing will stop me.
streetsamurai wrote: I rebember in one of the Q&A, the developpers said that the days of a hail of bullets magically hitting only the guy with a stormshield were over. It doesn't seems like it is the case, since i see nothing in the current rules that prevent that from happening
I think they meant by the 6 hurts everything, but you are right it's a silly comment as it will still save a hail of bullets
Automatically Appended Next Post: My local black shirt claimed today that he still knows nothing about release dates, so either he wasn't willing to say, or next week pre-orders seems unlikely. I feel like store managers would know by this point.
My local black shirt claimed today that he still knows nothing about release dates, so either he wasn't willing to say, or next week pre-orders seems unlikely. I feel like store managers would know by this point.
Considering the rumoured preorder date is 3rd June, next week would be pushing it a bit, no?
Rippy, they are not allowed to say. If (IF) it will be available to preorder on the WarhammerFest weekend more likely a LFGS who will be informed on monday by GW will leak the preorder list.
streetsamurai wrote: You can still have a guy with a storm shield while the rest of the unit doesn't.
To be honest, I think that they said the days of characters doing so were over, but having the sergent being able to do so is not much better.
We don't know if a stormshield is just a 2+ save or a 5++ invul. Either way in this edition it's not going to be the all powerful rerollable defensive item.
Sure you can throw your shots into a unit with mixed abilities still but its nowhere near what it use to be.
7E wound allocation was terrible. It created absurd situations like the prementioned character tanking all the shots, and it was really time consuming if you wanted to make sure that all your special and heavy weapons were placed for optimal protection.
Could that twitter hint be some form of Nurgle release? Are there any units that could be done or crossed over from AoS?
Seems most likely to me considering the recent plague marine rumours, Morty coming back and the possibility the box set will be SMs VS Deathguard?
Warhams-77 wrote: Rippy, they are not allowed to say. If (IF) it will be available to preorder on the WarhammerFest weekend more likely a LFGS who will be informed on monday by GW will leak the preorder list.
Yeah fair enough, I guess I am used to my old black shirt who was honest, and said "I can't say anything" rather than"I don't know anything"
streetsamurai wrote: I rebember in one of the Q&A, the developpers said that the days of a hail of bullets magically hitting only the guy with a stormshield were over. It doesn't seems like it is the case, since i see nothing in the current rules that prevent that from happening
Unless you make your sergeant, who only has one wound, the guy with the storm shield HQs can join unit.
Crimson wrote: 7E wound allocation was terrible. It created absurd situations like the prementioned character tanking all the shots, and it was really time consuming if you wanted to make sure that all your special and heavy weapons were placed for optimal protection.
I'd agree with that - and 6th Ed was just as bad with the unique equipment nonsense.
Owner Chooses is probably the least worse option, and works quite nicely with the removal of blast templates. Both reduce, if not altogether do away with, movement micro management.
Now there's nothing wrong with micro managing your movement if that's your thing, but it doesn't half slow the game down. Taking away the need and benefit of doing it ensures a smoother, better paced game.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
mrhappyface wrote: Warhammer TV just leaked something:
Next week we will get a model which we have not been able to play in 40k before but it isn't a new model.
AoS models in 40k?
Rapier Laser Destroyer?
We already have rules for those in 40k
Are they refering to AoS or FW?
In case of the latter, there is a bunch of units that are HH only for now. Such as large parts of AdMech and the Legio Custodes range.
The latter make sense, since Gulliman brought them along to his crusade.
I'm really curious how the 8th will treat FW units.
streetsamurai wrote: You can still have a guy with a storm shield while the rest of the unit doesn't.
To be honest, I think that they said the days of characters doing so were over, but having the sergent being able to do so is not much better.
In 4th edition, units with the same save, rolled all saves and then allocated wounds; units with mixed saves, you allocated the wounds before save, but no model could be allocated a second wound until all the models in the unit were allocated at least one.
So, if you have a 5 Terminators, taking 6 wounds from an AP -4 weapon and one of them has a storm shield, you would allocate one wound to each and then one model would be allocated a second wound. In this case you would make 5 saves at 6+ removing only non-stormshield models for failed saves and 2 more 3++ saves, but removing only the storm shield guy if both failed.
So looking forward to the Transport article tomorrow. If as many units as seats rumor is confirmed, my Orkz and CSM have a poor man's Combat Squad option now!
streetsamurai wrote: You can still have a guy with a storm shield while the rest of the unit doesn't.
To be honest, I think that they said the days of characters doing so were over, but having the sergent being able to do so is not much better.
Except that said shield would block absolutely nothing. You first save then allocate wounds, that shield on a single model is useless.
He, if you save before allocating wounds, the SS is even stronger since you will d make all your save with it, even if the guy holding it would have been dead after the first shot
streetsamurai wrote: You can still have a guy with a storm shield while the rest of the unit doesn't.
To be honest, I think that they said the days of characters doing so were over, but having the sergent being able to do so is not much better.
Except that said shield would block absolutely nothing. You first save then allocate wounds, that shield on a single model is useless.
He, if you save before allocating wounds, the SS is even stronger since you will d make all your save with it, even if he would have been dead after the first shot
The new rules pretty much preclude having one off different saves within a unit. Expect that SS will do something different now.
Good call. It may negate one wound a turn or something (actually, that would horrifying), or more likely ALL models will have to be equipped with them. They could say something like "Unit may be equipped with enough storm shields to grant a 4+ invulnerable save. Which models are carrying the storm shields is irrelevant".
MaxT wrote: The new rules pretty much preclude having one off different saves within a unit. Expect that SS will do something different now.
Do we know enough about the wound allocation rules to say if that's true or not? Previous editions had wounds allocated by the defender but still managed mixed saves, didn't they?
I'm also struggling to see what assault and storm shields could do which doesn't require some weirdness. Allow a number of improved saves equal to the number of shields in a unit? Is that per turn, per phase or per attack? How do you keep track of how many you have used? What happens if you lose models with shields part-way through? If it's per attack, what counts as a different attack with the new rules for splitting a unit's shots?
The only really simple solution I can think of is to have shields add wounds to a model, which works well enough but feels really strange to me.
Another weird solution would be to split off models which have better saves into their own units. This might seem weird, but it is what they seem to have done with the drone controller from the tau sniper drones.
streetsamurai wrote: You can still have a guy with a storm shield while the rest of the unit doesn't.
To be honest, I think that they said the days of characters doing so were over, but having the sergent being able to do so is not much better.
Except that said shield would block absolutely nothing. You first save then allocate wounds, that shield on a single model is useless.
He, if you save before allocating wounds, the SS is even stronger since you will d make all your save with it, even if the guy holding it would have been dead after the first shot
In Age of Sigmar you have something similar with the Ard boyz (Black orcs), because they can be equiped mixed with two hand weapons, shields, and two-handed weapons. So normally, people put the Black Orcs with the offensive weapons on frot to reach more enemies, and the ones with the shields in the back, and when they have to roll wounds, obviously you put the wounds in the orks with shields first to roll better saves with them.
Is a little gamey, but it compensates for the speed in all the other cases of rolling for damage. You have to roll the saves 1 by 1 because when the last Black Orc with shield die, you loose that benefit.
As you have to put all the wounds into the same model until he dies, if you have for example 3 orks with shield, you can roll all the damage with the better save up to 6 fails. At that point the orks with shield die and you can roll all the saves at the same time because it has no difference.
So technically, with very good luck, there will still be situations of a guy with a tiny shields stopping all the damage to his unit. More probably, he will just die the first and after him the unit will take damage, even if he is as a miniature in the back of the unit.
Tzaangor are a good example in AoS. Mix of armaments.
Attack unit, it has a universal save of 5+.
When allocating wounds, if you allocate to a model with a shield, you get a 6+ wound avoidance roll.
Pass it, all good. Fail it, model with shield dies.
Storm shields will do something similar in all likelihood.
you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
Also, since fortifications are T10 I wonder if the landraider will have the same (since they share armor values)
They aren't keeping the toughness of vehicles in line with all vehicles of same previous armor value from what we've seen.
Toughness has been consistently AV minus 5. There are other rules needed to cover the remaining durability for some. I expect T9 on the LR. Not sure if it will be 2+ or 3+ though...depends on the wounds.
Powerfisting wrote: you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
kellymatthew37 wrote: I am thinking that much like the las gun. The simple gaunt with a devourer will be fairly strong.
In particular if units can shoot while engaged (we only know that a model within 1" on an enemy can't shoot, nothing has been said on units) , the first row fights and the other 30 shoot!
kellymatthew37 wrote: I am thinking that much like the las gun. The simple gaunt with a devourer will be fairly strong.
In particular if units can shoot while engaged (we only know that a model within 1" on an enemy can't shoot, nothing has been said on units) , the first row fights and the other 30 shoot!
Yeah it doesn't specify in the shooting article but the fight phase article is pretty clear about it being units not models.
Nightlord1987 wrote: So looking forward to the Transport article tomorrow. If as many units as seats rumor is confirmed, my Orkz and CSM have a poor man's Combat Squad option now!
I'm pretty sure its not a rumor. Didn't he specifically say you could go 5+5 in a 10 capacity vehicle in the live stream?
Verviedi wrote: I'm sure there will be a 1-LoW or 2-LoW detachment, don't worry.
Yea I bet it would be a 1-2 with 0 CP.
Maybe we'll see something like below. That comes to 13 instead of 12, but the extra elite could easily be cut.
Patrol
Battalion
Brigade
Super Heavy
Super Heavy (smaller and less CP)
Elite 1
Elite 2
Fast Attack 1
Fast Attack 2
Heavy Support 1
Heavy Support 2
Flyer 1
Flyer 2
Agreed. Probably a detachment of 1-2 with +0 cp, and 3-5 with +3. As for the 14th detachment, so far nothing so far has had fortification slots, so likely a 1-4 fortifications with +0.
Spoletta wrote: T9 on LR and Monolith would force the use of S10 weaponry (Tfex, railsides and similar stuff) instead of relying on melta every time. I like it.
The monolith would sort of get it's 3rd edition rules living metal back then! Maybe it can get the S9 back on its particle whip too, though that seems pretty unlikely, as well as rerolling we'll be back and acting as a teleporter. Looking back, it's pretty amazing how much worse it's gotten over the years. Also. fun fact: living metal has been completely different in every iteration of the rules. It's gone from lance/melta immunity, to rolling to ignore shaken/stunned, to completely ignoring shaken and also regenerating heavy vehicles hull points. On the grounds that crew shaken likely no longer exists, it seems pretty likely it'll be totally different again.
I'm pretty worried about Necrons to be honest; the track record of balancing them has made them swing wildly between useless and broken, with some units (Szeras, Deceiver (sharded or not), Tesseract Vaults, Obelisks, Lychguard, Doomsday Arks) which have never been good. Wraiths went from a (kinda bad, due to phase out) glass cannon unit, to an insanely durable unit, to an even more insanely durable unit; it's a testament to how broken 7e is that Wraiths in their formation, with T5 W2 3++ and a 4+ reanimation roll, are actually STILL not good enough to compete with Eldar, GSC, Space Marine Company, etc. Destroyers went from take as many as possible, to bad, to great. Meanwhile, the Tesseract Vault went from being totally outshone by how broken the Transcendent C'tan was, to being utterly crippled by the ridiculous way that Powers of the C'tan works (being 1.5x the cost of a Knight didn't help either). Of course, it seems as though we're going to be playing a nearly totally different game, what with the near inevitability of close combat now, so who knows how it'll all shake out. Maybe C'tan will actually get to be the threat they've always wanted to be, instead of a joke unit. Perhaps Lychguard can even pretend they're not totally outshone by assault marines too.
Back in 5th you would allocate wounds then roll to save. Models in the same war gear grouping would be grouped. Every model had to have at least one wound allocated before a model could have a second wound allocated.
The problem with this system was codexs with multi wound models were you could make every guy a unquie wound pool with all the war gear options letting you spread out the wounds.
Latest Round up from Facebook. Next one on Monday:
Stronghold Assault Q1: I feel like it's been Christmas eve for the last month you're killing me here guys...
A1: The Emperor will be bringing you lots of lovely presents very soon... but only if you've been good.
Q2: what if we have been more than good..... greater good, if you will?
A2: If you have have been all about the Greater Good, the Emperor has a special gift just for you. He's having it hand-delivered by three companies of Flesh Tearers real soon!
Q: Nice! Now we just need more Xeno fortifications and terrain. As an Imperial player I would like a chance at ruining Xenos worlds!
A: As a fellow Imperial player... I would hope that all those buildings have been flattened already!
But great shout - we will pass this one on to the guys in the scenery team.
Q1: I would like to know how these models are made. Out of curiosity.
A1: Most of our models these days are sculpted digitally and the molds produced on site here at Games Workshop. It's a fascinating process!
Q2: Will we ever get a behind the scenes doco/movie of the design through to production?
A2: While the methods of production of our models is a closely guarded secret, watched over by a shadowy cabal of Plastimancers, a documentary on how your models are made is a great, great idea. We'll put it to our video team and see what can be done.
Q: Can we have an article discussing flyers, maybe a couple different ones, like the Storm Raven, Tyranid Hive Tyrant, and Eldar hemlock wraith fighter? I think flyers is the one thing that hasnt really been touched on at all. But over all very happy with whats been coming out
A: Hey Heath - that's a great shout. We'll have a Flyer article zooming it;s way to you real soon.
Q: Will we still be able to use Fortifications in a Detachment that isn't a Stronghold Assault missions? I always wanted to get an Aquila Strongpoint, but 7th ed Rules made it almost useless (a single penetrating hit and the gun is out of comission for example) and so far the rules seem to make it an actual choice for my Army now.
A: If you mean "is there a way of using fortifications in a matched play game?" then the answer is yes... but we will reveal more on that in the future.
Q: Really wana see how deathwatch kill teams are gonna work, without formations unless unit entries are changed the army really won't feel like it should.
A: Hey Luke - we will get round to every faction eventually. Watch out for the Deathwatch Faction Focus article, coming this way quicker than a factory-fresh Corvus Blackstar.
Q: In an unrelated topic: Congrats on achieving a 150k subscriber milestone on youtube !
A: Why, thank you!
Q: Gonna be fun watching my Trygons take apart buildings, and my Carnifexes destroy that Fortress
A: Oh, yes you are!
Q: Good to know but, a bit of a damp squib for a saturday afternoon GW. Guessing no faction focus today either.
A: We try to do one every other day, so we'll have one for you tomorrow.
Q: Is that gonna be in a separate book or will it come as part of the core rule book?
A: All will be revealed very soon!
Q: Will the various terrain pieces made by GW for 40k continue to have specific rules?
A: Yes they will indeed. Every terrain piece will have rules you can choose to use if you want to.
Q: Are buildings going to have degenerative stats as well? losing weapons as you damage them?
A: Hey Dennis - great question, sir! We haven't seen a datasheet for a building yet, so we cannot say. We'll see about releasing more on buildings in the near future. Sounds like a cool idea, mind.
Q: Any chance you guys will be releasing more terrain pieces for other factions? We've seen mostly Imperial stuff, but Necron or Ork buildings would be awesome!
Also, Finecast - is this going away, as it should (forgive me, but the quality is seriously bad)?
Also2.0, Start Collecting - Grey Knights pretty please!
A: Hey Tomek - well, non- Imperial scenery is something the guys are looking into.We have already had the Deathworld Forest kit, which saw some Eldar elements in there; who know what the future brings?
Q: I'm just happy a Howling Griffins pic was used in the article
A: That's one of my favourite pieces of Warhammer 40,000 art; the scale it gives is incredible - Nick
Q: Hey GW, show us the Assault Primaris Marines! Also, question- will there be Primaris HQ units? Captains, Techmarines, Chaplains etc?
A: Hey Matt - well, in the Q&A ion Warhammer TV the other night (linked below), Pete Foley said there will be more Primaris Space Marines incoming, and that all of them are very specialised in the role they do. What those look like and who they are... well, only time will tell!
https://www.facebook.com/WarhammerTVteam/videos/379597632435221/?hc_location=ufi
Q: Are we going to get a Zone Mortalis ruleset too? Please?
A: If we see those, they will be coming from Forge World, who make that kit. There is every chance we will; watch this space for all the latest news as we get it.
Q: Will you make bigger buildings for bigger marines?
A: Primaris Space Marines don't need cover... they walk into battle wearing it.
Q: Will you make how to play video tutorials with newhammer?
A: That sounds like a very sensible idea!
Q: We gunna hear about the Necron Dynasties anytime soon?
A: Of course! There is a Faction Focus article planned for every race, Necrons included. Keep watching this space.
Q: PLeASe B0Ss
A: Ha! It's on the way! We wold have thought the Nercontyr would be good at waiting patiently by now... as that's all you've been doing for some 25,000 years.
Chainswords are awesome Q: I've modded many of my assault marines to dual wield chainswords (with the pistol holstered on their hip). It was a CC Counts As visual drama thing. So, I'm happy to see the chainsword come into its own.
A: Only thing better than a petrol-driven chain-belt Xenos killing-bat? Two of them.
Q: NOW YOU POST IT???!?!?! Today i was assembling my new chaos army and i was wondering "hmmm...maybe some chainswords for them instead of bolters? Nah bolters will do"
Now i have to cut them and assemble them again....
A: Our apologies!
Q1: Will this rule be identical for chainaxes, too?
A1: We'll have to wait and see!
Q2: is a chainaxe the same as a chainsword?
A2: But considerably more axe-y in it's design.
Powerfisting wrote: you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
But entirely possible it's different.
I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.
Davor wrote:Just like to give a big thanks to Rippy and Clockwork Zion for all the updates and keeping us updated. Greatly appreciated guys.
mrhappyface wrote:Three cheers? Hip, hip!
Azazelx wrote:Yes - I'll agree to that. Great wok guys - and thank you!
No worries dudes, it's easily done with a great community to provide support! I always wake up with PMs for things to be added and messages of thanks, I appreciate it!
Also, since fortifications are T10 I wonder if the landraider will have the same (since they share armor values)
They aren't keeping the toughness of vehicles in line with all vehicles of same previous armor value from what we've seen.
Toughness has been consistently AV minus 5. There are other rules needed to cover the remaining durability for some. I expect T9 on the LR. Not sure if it will be 2+ or 3+ though...depends on the wounds.
Thought we heard Raiders were T6 though....
T5 Raiders and Land Speeders would be lame as heck.
Also, since fortifications are T10 I wonder if the landraider will have the same (since they share armor values)
They aren't keeping the toughness of vehicles in line with all vehicles of same previous armor value from what we've seen.
Toughness has been consistently AV minus 5. There are other rules needed to cover the remaining durability for some. I expect T9 on the LR. Not sure if it will be 2+ or 3+ though...depends on the wounds.
Thought we heard Raiders were T6 though....
T5 Raiders and Land Speeders would be lame as heck.
I expect T5, they are the most fragile vehicles in the game.
I have a vehicle and monstrous creature design rules set linked in my signature. It has a chart for purchasing av and whether or not it is open topped. It also has a chart for toughness/save point calculating.
Go through and purchase the av/open ratings and then see what those points net you on the toughness/save chart.
Land raider is toughness 9 2+ save
Raider is toughness 5 6+ save
My charts put the dread at t7 3+ save
The annihilation barge would be t6 3+ save
The imperial knight would be at t8 5+ so there are some outliers, but overall pretty accurate.
Powerfisting wrote: you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
But entirely possible it's different.
I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.
Very likily tho that if the vehicle is destroyed and you have no room to disembark, the unit is lost. Judgeing by the fact you lose models in deep strike if you can't place them.
Powerfisting wrote: you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
But entirely possible it's different.
I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.
Very likily tho that if the vehicle is destroyed and you have no room to disembark, the unit is lost. Judgeing by the fact you lose models in deep strike if you can't place them.
Emergency disembarking could still be a thing though.
Powerfisting wrote: you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
But entirely possible it's different.
Since 40K doesn't have a "hero phase" like AOS its a safe bet that units can only embarks and disembark in the movement phase. So, you would be locked in the vehicle if you don't get out before it charges. The question then is if you can still charge if you disembark after the vehicle makes its advance. I would guess no, unless your in and open topped or assault vehicle. But we'll see.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
But entirely possible it's different.
Maybe it differs depending on what type of vehicle your in. Open topped or an assault ramp might allow for an Attack after the vehicle has charged.
Whilst it may not have done away with imbalance altogether, from what we've heard, the gap has been significantly closed.
I'm skeptical here. The rule set incl. the rules for the models/units is too big to get balanced sufficiently well. There will be gaps, loop holes, and OP and underwhelming units everywhere. No elusions here.
I don't see why, they will have moved to a model with an annual "edition" with the general's handbook. That will be the same hype and presumed sales bump of a new edition.
They are giving the rules away for free, so it's not like they need to sell rulebooks.
They seem to have finally landed on the idea that a reputation for balanced rules might be good for sales (shocking I know)
Vorian wrote: But, importantly, they are intending to amend the game based upon feedback each year.
Sure, it's pretty impossible to balance something like 40k perfectly in one go - but after a few years of fixes? It'll be pretty tight
Then they'll do a new edition.
I know this was being facetious, though I wouldn't be surprised if they called this "new Warhammer" instead of 8th edition for the reason of this being the last ever edition, just with yesrly rule adjustments/changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Except if it isn't popular of course
Vorian wrote: But, importantly, they are intending to amend the game based upon feedback each year.
Sure, it's pretty impossible to balance something like 40k perfectly in one go - but after a few years of fixes? It'll be pretty tight
Then they'll do a new edition.
Yeah, that's probably my biggest fear with this whole thing, that after all this work GW has allegedly put into 8th they're just going to go right back to the same gak they were doing before...that whole model of making minor tweaks to the rules, not to improve upon them, but simply to shake the meta so people must constantly keep re-buying half their army and hundreds of dollars worth of books to keep playing at all. Even the planned annual revisions have me worried.
I would much prefer it if "New GW" chooses this time to sustain itself on model sales, since it always did claim to be a "model company" first, and not through planned obsolescence with the game that they (used to) pretend that no one really plays anyway.
Rippy wrote: Added Primaris Marine size comparison to OP, shamelessly stolen from a general thread.
Thanks Rippy!
Man that's awesome, now they are finally truly big compared to guardsmen, like two heads higher! And a little smaller then Custodes too.
I think it goes to show, that the stance of regular marine really let them down. The deathwatch marines looks appropriate compared to guardsmen to show a marines stature being larger than that of a guardsmen.
The primaries are huge, so huge I don't think they can justify custodes as being superior to them if they were to replace normal marines, I think normal size marines are staying for long term.
Rippy wrote: Added Primaris Marine size comparison to OP, shamelessly stolen from a general thread.
Thanks Rippy!
Man that's awesome, now they are finally truly big compared to guardsmen, like two heads higher! And a little smaller then Custodes too.
I think it goes to show, that the stance of regular marine really let them down. The deathwatch marines looks appropriate compared to guardsmen to show a marines stature being larger than that of a guardsmen.
The primaries are huge, so huge I don't think they can justify custodes as being superior to them if they were to replace normal marines, I think normal size marines are staying for long term.
Yeah take the top of the golden bananas and they are most likely the same size as Restartes and leave Minimarines looking pretty silly. I dont think your going to be able to mix old and new together without it looking like Minimarines are child soldiers it's going to be like Infinity.
The only plus I can see is that if they have helmet less heads they might size ok with custodes to get rid of the gakky Blanche looking helmets.
Also, since fortifications are T10 I wonder if the landraider will have the same (since they share armor values)
They aren't keeping the toughness of vehicles in line with all vehicles of same previous armor value from what we've seen.
Toughness has been consistently AV minus 5. There are other rules needed to cover the remaining durability for some. I expect T9 on the LR. Not sure if it will be 2+ or 3+ though...depends on the wounds.
Thought we heard Raiders were T6 though....
T5 Raiders and Land Speeders would be lame as heck.
Leth wrote:T5 or 6 wound be about what I would expect. I hope for T5 for sentinels, land speeders, etc because they really are fragile.
I expect a lot of light vehicles are going to make it or break it over the armor save. If land speeders and IG sentinels are T5 with 3+ armor, they would be fine. But if you made them T5 4+ but made them cost less, I would be totally fine with it.
Powerfisting wrote: you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
But entirely possible it's different.
I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.
Very likily tho that if the vehicle is destroyed and you have no room to disembark, the unit is lost. Judgeing by the fact you lose models in deep strike if you can't place them.
I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.
So charging a vehicle into close combat and disembarking troops next turn will be a thing. It'll just be dangerous if you lose the vehicle.
Powerfisting wrote: you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
But entirely possible it's different.
I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.
Very likily tho that if the vehicle is destroyed and you have no room to disembark, the unit is lost. Judgeing by the fact you lose models in deep strike if you can't place them.
I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.
In stronghold assault one of the strategims is an escape hatch: it means your models in the building only die on a 1 rather than 1-3. Might roll over for transports too but for now it's confirmed for buildings.
I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.
That would be really terrible for expensive elite units.
Powerfisting wrote: you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
But entirely possible it's different.
I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.
Very likily tho that if the vehicle is destroyed and you have no room to disembark, the unit is lost. Judgeing by the fact you lose models in deep strike if you can't place them.
I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.
So charging a vehicle into close combat and disembarking troops next turn will be a thing. It'll just be dangerous if you lose the vehicle.
In AoS, if an Arkanaut Ironclad is destroyed the embarked models are only removed on a roll of a 1 and not a roll of 1-3.
Powerfisting wrote: you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.
Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.
On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.
But entirely possible it's different.
I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.
Very likily tho that if the vehicle is destroyed and you have no room to disembark, the unit is lost. Judgeing by the fact you lose models in deep strike if you can't place them.
I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.
So charging a vehicle into close combat and disembarking troops next turn will be a thing. It'll just be dangerous if you lose the vehicle.
In AoS, if an Arkanaut Ironclad is destroyed the embarked models are only removed on a roll of a 1 and not a roll of 1-3.
I could see this being the case going forwards. It makes vehicles equally hazardous for everyone, while not being crippling in how dangerous they are.
So a few things I noticed:
- hopping out before the transport moves lets you multi-charge the unit and the transport (unit gets to act as normal)
- using transports as a bullet soak is not only a good tactic for assault armies but one that apparently even GW has taken notice of (hello Rhino Crush)
- T5 vehicles exist.
edit: ah they get out before it moves! bloody had to keep reading didnt i
It's still a good change. Hopping out, charging your Khornate tank into the enemy to reap some skulls and soak some Overwatch followed by sending your Berserkers in is a perfectly viable, and useful tactic.
to be honest its an amazing change, thinking about all the times i'v had a transport popped and then the unit inside is limited to not charging always felt so ugh.
bones a lot of transports and armies over a bit like landraiders for one
ork truks, raiders etc... no 6" move, 6" get out then 2d6 charge anymore... effectively all those transports have lost 6" off the charge... i guess the tactic is you get the unit out and ploguh the transport into CC who should easily make it what with its increased move to hold up the unit and your transported unti goes after something else or catches up next turn to the held up unit
I filtered the thread out of curiosity to see how many pages were all you, I was impressed and a bit concerned you may be turning to the dark gods...
that gak is cool. 
