Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 John Prins wrote:
This split fire rule makes bringing a Lascannon or Multi-Melta in a squad worthwhile. No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it. No more shooting the lascannon against weedy chaos cultists.

And come to think of it, it may lead to a resurgence of the humble Missile Launcher, as its versatility is multiplied - it can support your anti-horde shooting or act as your anti-tank weapon.

yeah, and if you move you can still use it reasonably well, I'll likely be using missile launchers with my tac squads

I like that small arms fire can hurt tanks, even if it is rare. I just watched the movie Fury, and it reminds me of that,
Watch that movie if you are still hating on everything can damage everything.

Edit: to elaborate on the "realism" that lots of people were freaking out about, in the current rules, the "realism" is they see a tank, and just look at it, in new rules, they see the tank, and at least give it everything they have got, maybe getting the 1 in 100 lucky shot off.

Also split fire is awesome, but I agree, I hope you have to declare all targets first (5 bolters against that, 3 against that etc.)

QA stuff is interesting. No armour facings confirmed, clearly (I mean they all but were already, but definitely now). Maybe some peeps can stop banging the Maybe There Will Be Drum on that one now.

 insaniak wrote:
Split fire doesn't make the ability of small arms to hurt tanks any less ridiculous,

Nothing's perfect. I think of it as abstract damage - all the shots pinging off the hull makes the driver nervous and he hits some terrain, or the already existing holes in the hull from heavy weapons provide a nice clean avenue for small arms fire to enter the more vulnerable guts of the vehicle. A bolter round might never penetrate the hull of a Devilfish, but it might damage the chin turret or engine intakes.

 John Prins wrote:
No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.

Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.

 John Prins wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Split fire doesn't make the ability of small arms to hurt tanks any less ridiculous,

Nothing's perfect. I think of it as abstract damage - all the shots pinging off the hull makes the driver nervous and he hits some terrain, or the already existing holes in the hull from heavy weapons provide a nice clean avenue for small arms fire to enter the more vulnerable guts of the vehicle. A bolter round might never penetrate the hull of a Devilfish, but it might damage the chin turret or engine intakes.

It's weird to hear anyone call anything in 40k ridiculous derisively...I mean...there are dude that ride cybernetically enhanced wolves into battle against warmachine the size of a small city in this game.

You could kill a tank with an AXE before, why is doing it with a gun suddenly crazy? Or have tanks always had a secret weakness to axes i didn't know about...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.

Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.

Well, except they aren't if you look at the maths, and also look at the bigger picture; there are other targets other than one tank to think about


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"anything wounding anything" is going to be a noob trap, or an "I can't see anything else so I may as well" kind of deal, I think.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.

Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.

How many combined bolters? Assuming you hit and you do the average three wounds with a lascannon how many bolters do you need? you need about 1.8 lascannon hits to do 3 wounds reliably to a tank you need 54 bolter hits.

So yes, you are just as likely to do those 3 wounds with 3 lascannon devastators as you are with 41 rapid firing bolter marines,

Oh no, what a nightmare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.

Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.

Well, except they aren't if you look at the maths, and also look at the bigger picture; there are other targets other than one tank to think about


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"anything wounding anything" is going to be a noob trap, or an "I can't see anything else so I may as well" kind of deal, I think.

It's kind of already a noob trap tbh

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it.

Except, you won't be wasting them. You'll just be wounding on 6s instead of 3s. Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.

Assuming a 3+ save, you'd need 24 bolter shots (I think? My mathhammer is rusty) to do one wound, on average. Seems wasteful to me. If there's no other target, though, by all means, go for it.

 Rippy wrote:
I like that small arms fire can hurt tanks, even if it is rare. I just watched the movie Fury, and it reminds me of that,

Spoiler:

200 dudes shooting a tank and barely does anything, except when they pop their heads out get more ammo

Watch that movie if you are still hating on everything can damage everything.

That scene was terrible and raised the movie from a not bad gritty WW2 movie to horribly absurd unrealistic movie. I was enjoying most of the movie and left the cinema deflated because of that scene, to end an otherwise decent movie on such an absurd idea, urgh. The Germans wouldn't have wasted their time and lives shooting small arms at an immobilised Sherman, especially since in the earlier scene they were shown with plenty of anti tank Panzerfausts.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I like that small arms fire can hurt tanks, even if it is rare. I just watched the movie Fury, and it reminds me of that,

Spoiler:

200 dudes shooting a tank and barely does anything, except when they pop their heads out get more ammo

Watch that movie if you are still hating on everything can damage everything.

That scene was terrible and raised the movie from a not bad gritty WW2 movie to horribly absurd unrealistic movie. I was enjoying most of the movie and left the cinema deflated because of that scene, to end an otherwise decent movie on such an absurd idea, urgh. The Germans wouldn't have wasted their time and lives shooting small arms at an immobilised Sherman, especially since in the earlier scene they were shown with plenty of anti tank Panzerfausts.

Yes, as much as I enjoyed the movie that scene was utterly preposterous. And why exactly did they leave the spare ammo on the outside of the tank when their whole purpose was to make a last stand?

As an aside to this whole discussion, while I find the damage tables interesting it does tend to clump everything toward the median. Of course now weapons may be strength 13 and models toughness 11 for that matter - we shall see!

Everyone seems pleased that vehicles are going to be so much more durable, but the converse of course is that many weapons (lascannons, for example) must be weaker by the same degree. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out once all the rules are available.

Vehicle durability depends on how many multiwound weapons you can shoot at it. D6 is also a pretty large range of outcomes - not that different from "blows up on a 6" for many vehicles.

Hopefully they will do some interesting things with vehicle stats - so far all we've seen is 3+ save, T8, variable wounds, right? Maybe Eldar willl have T7 Vehicles but T10 walkers/constructs.

While I agree that the end scene changed it from a good war movie in to another Hollywood 'MERICA! moment, the sort of unrealistic warfare there is pretty much the same as warfare in 40k, which is my point.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
The degradation chart might also have interesting twists for certain models as well that don't just have to do with reductions in Attacks, Move, and BS/WS. Imagine a Riptide that gets damage to their Nova Reactor as they take wounds - making it harder or more dangerous to use.

Hopefully they utilize this design space well. I could see the heavy armor upgrade changing the chart to something less painful, berserking Khorne daemon engines that get killier as they go down, and more ways to differentiate the numerous metal boxes and tanks of the game. Maybe Eldar vehicles have fewer hull points but suffer less grevious penalties on the vehicle degradation chart? Maybe Leman Russes have high toughness but can be immobilized at very low health? What about a vehicle whose weapons gain "gets hot" at low health as it's heat sinks get blown off? There are so many potential ways to make this interesting.

There is evidence in AoS that they will make use of this design element. For example a Lord of Change has their unique spell become less effective as he loses wounds, Skarbrand becomes angrier the more damage he has suffered, and Nagash loses spell casting potency. So, without any actual evidence, I fully expect that different units will have different results, and different tiers.

I.e. the morkanaut has three damage tracks, and only degrades after suffering 9 wounds. I could see a Knight with three damage tracks, two for WS/BS and last called reactor with an increasing value that if rolled over = goodbye cruel world, and suffers degraded ability at a lower percentage of wounds suffered.

 kestral wrote:
Vehicle durability depends on how many multiwound weapons you can shoot at it. D6 is also a pretty large range of outcomes - not that different from "blows up on a 6" for many vehicles.

Hopefully they will do some interesting things with vehicle stats - so far all we've seen is 3+ save, T8, variable wounds, right? Maybe Eldar willl have T7 Vehicles but T10 walkers/constructs.

Dread was t7

 Rippy wrote:
I like that small arms fire can hurt tanks, even if it is rare. I just watched the movie Fury, and it reminds me of that,

Spoiler:

200 dudes shooting a tank and barely does anything, except when they pop their heads out get more ammo

Watch that movie if you are still hating on everything can damage everything.

Edit: to elaborate on the "realism" that lots of people were freaking out about, in the current rules, the "realism" is they see a tank, and just look at it, in new rules, they see the tank, and at least give it everything they have got, maybe getting the 1 in 100 lucky shot off.

Also split fire is awesome, but I agree, I hope you have to declare all targets first (5 bolters against that, 3 against that etc.)

Notice, aside from the Panzerfaust, no small-arms fire actually damaged the vehicle, not a great comparison to say... lasguns smoking a Leman Russ. And like someone else mentioned, making a last stand with your reserve ammo attached to the outside of your tank is just stupid.

Also, split fire being worth it now? Man, figures I got rid of all my devastators.

Yes, but small arms fire manage to hurt and kill the people who make the tank work, effectively stopping it.
People need more imagination!

Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.

40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.

 Hollow wrote:
Not much imagination. Bolters and lasguns ARE NOT REAL! Such an absurd line of criticism. "It's just not realistic! An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting. Its just not believable." In 40k. Believable? Please.

What even is this reply?

Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

 Hollow wrote:
REAL! ....Believable.

These are not synonyms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

Yes, but I haven't seen anywhere it being promised for Monday.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
Weren't we promised an Astra Militarum article?

Yes, but I haven't seen anywhere it being promised for Monday.

I like to think that the last few wounds on a tank now is it being half ripped open, small arms fire going in to the remaining crewmen

I know they said all models will have rules on release, but does this cover Forgeworld 40k models also? Id like to get SECUTARII HOPLITES upgrade kit and SECUTARII PELTASTS upgrade kit, but don't want to build them if they wont have rules on release

 Hollow wrote:
An imaginary weapon, damaging an imaginary tank in an imaginary setting...

...in which they have not previously been able to do so.

It's a significant change, that is of questionable benefit to the game. So yes, some people are resistant to it.

Backfire wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:

As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.

This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.

If there ever was a reason for removing armor facings, AV and hull points, there it is.

Selective "realism" is great when only one punching bag unit type suffers from all the resulting drawbacks, I guess.
It's particularly amazing when Dreadknights and Riptides are somehow MCs and not vehicles when the Penitent Engine and the Dreadnought are.

Agreed, but this was not so much a problem of the ruleset, but idiotic Codex design. Dreadknight, Riptide and Wraithknight should have been Walkers from the start, end of story. They could have been say AV12 all around Walkers, to remove facing issue from a model which doesn't have a clear visual facing, but vehicles nevertheless. People always harped how "MC's are overpowered" but hardly anyone thought that before they began adding OP Monstrous creatures to the game. They just as well might have classed them as "Infantry" and we would have complained that "Infantry is OP"...

And I never thought Wraithlord overpowered in 5th edition. It was decent unit and that was that. It was basically a walker which could not be stunned or immobilized. It died to same weapons as other Walkers, it wasn't an issue.

The real issue with the last generation of "Machines" Monstruous creatures, is that they where too good at shooting.

i mean Dreadknight with that ridiculous 12 shots cannon?..., same for Riptides.

It is a HUGE gap between the old school MC's like Carnis and stuff and Walkers who had ONE maybe TWo weapons in some cases that had at best 2 to 4 Shots, where at the time the Psyflemen Dread was considered the best shooter with his 4 AC shots a turn.

Then came the riduculous bullcrap.

honestly a Dreadknight wiht a one shot or even a 2 shot gun, is waaay less scary for my models then the one that can shoot 12 times with ONE weapon and ignore my armors, and while a powerfull cannon on a vehicle had a chance to be destroyed or at least shaken to interupt the barrage, giving a MC 12shots weapons that is immune to anything short from death and LoS blocking terrains, thats what was the groin kicker.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Assuming you're in range, combined Bolters are just as good as a Lascannon.

In theory, yes. In practice, no.

A bolter has a 1/27 (3.7%) chance of putting 1 wound on a dread. To kill a dread you would need about 216 bolter shots. If you dropped 20 bolter marines on turn 1 within rapid fire range of the dread and spent the entire time rapid firing into the dread, by the end of turn 6, they would have managed to bring down the dread. Considering that this would take 648 dice rolled to accomplish, we can assume the law of large numbers will come into play making this a fairly consistent number.

A LC has 37% to inflict d6 wounds (~3.5) wounds on a dread.
The LC is 10 times more likely to injure the dread. The LC will also do 3.5 times as much damage. This means that between 6 and 7 LC shots will kill a dread on average.
2 LC predators with LC sponsons can kill that same dread in one turn.

What is the takeaway? 8th edition really pushes the right tool for the job.

str00dles1 wrote:
I know they said all models will have rules on release, but does this cover Forgeworld 40k models also? Id like to get SECUTARII HOPLITES upgrade kit and SECUTARII PELTASTS upgrade kit, but don't want to build them if they wont have rules on release

All forgeworld models released or given 40k specific rules will definitely, 30k specific stuff might have to wait.

Daedalus81 wrote:

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

MSU is still more resilient than big unit. Do you want 1x10 or 2x5 when being fired by 4 HB? Answer is 2x5.