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.
2017/05/10 20:29:36
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
2.28 wound sounds nice. But remember wound count has also gone way up so it's not improvement.
I think it is. Previously you're looking at something like .25 of a roll on a damage table if my quick math is right. Less impressive on the whole, or least less reliable, which is maybe why I like the new rules better. I like reliable. I'll take an average of 2.28 out of a total of 12 or whatever over the very real chance of doing nothing for 3 turns. I just think it's easier to plan and to manage target selection when the outcome is more reliable.
Also just realized that against terminators that are basically new target of choice it's like 0.7 dead terminator when in open. Not that hot...
The LR wasn't killing anything close to .7 terminators a round on average in 7th, so its an improvement, plus there's the chance to kill 2 or 3 on a good roll when the save is only 4+ and you're rolling d3 for damage. Against multi-wound stuff that doesn't also have a 2+ save the damage goes up a bunch too, and against those targets the difference is even more significant. Diference of opinion maybe, since we don't know what special rules some of the other mutli-wound stuff like Tyranid Warriors will have, but I'm willing to bet the BC will end up being a lot better at killing that kind of target, on the whole, than it used to be. Which seems good to me.
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all.
2017/05/10 20:30:23
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
JohnHwangDD wrote: BTW, against the same W1 targets, the Heavy Bolter is basically about as good as the Battlecannon, killing 0.8 SMs, where the BC kills 1 - a mere 20% difference. How is that acceptable?
If the Battlecannon started at 2d6 shots for Large Blast, that might be acceptable.
It's just a different gun now. Wait until Orks get 2 wounds...
JohnHwangDD wrote: BTW, against the same W1 targets, the Heavy Bolter is basically about as good as the Battlecannon, killing 0.8 SMs, where the BC kills 1 - a mere 20% difference. How is that acceptable?
If the Battlecannon started at 2d6 shots for Large Blast, that might be acceptable.
No it isn't. 3(1/2)(2/3)(1/2)=0.5 wounds. It's about half as good as a battlecannon, which does ~0.97.
This, too. We have to be careful when comparing our ballistic skill calculations.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/10 20:31:36
2017/05/10 20:31:54
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
insaniak wrote: Twin linked going back to actually being two weapons is awesome.
Only oddity being that might just as well write "2 lascannons" rather than "twinlinked lascannon".
As has been mentioned though, some models may be restricted in how many weapons they can fire. A Space marine likely can only fire 1 weapon, so having '2 Bolters' on his bike will be worthless as he could only fire 1. But having a "Twin bolter" on his bike would be great.
I doubt this would apply to vehicles who can probably fire all their weapons and at different targets (confirmed by GW), but the convention is still needed for some models. Speculation note: I don't think 'Relentless' will exist in 8th, so if vehicles move, heavy weapons will suffer -1 to hit.
-
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/10 20:34:42
Galef wrote: What if....and following on this one....GW doesn't what to reveal all the USRs, I mean 'keyword special rules' that every weapon has?
What if the Battle cannons has Ordinance or something similar that allows it to roll 2d6 taking the highest for the number of shots?
But GW hasn't revealed that part of it's profile yet?
-
I find that incredibly unlikely.
2017/05/10 20:35:00
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
Grey Templar wrote: The Riptide can't be a giant death robot, its completely lacking a sword or massive chainsaw. All giant death robots have swords or massive chainsaws.
2017/04/10 20:36:31
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
Galef wrote: What if....and following on this one....GW doesn't what to reveal all the USRs, I mean 'keyword special rules' that every weapon has? What if the Battle cannons has Ordinance or something similar that allows it to roll 2d6 taking the highest for the number of shots? But GW hasn't revealed that part of it's profile yet?
-
I find that incredibly unlikely.
Me too. I was just speculating, but considering the profile for the Battle cannon has a ' - ' in its abilities column, we probably know all there is to it.
Bulldogging wrote: The converion of AP to -Rend has me wondering what they will do with "rending" weapons.
Prob will gain more rend when roll a 6 to hit or wound?
Honestly, I think those weapons are likely to just get an additional AP. From what we have seen AP4 translates to AP -1 (see Heavy bolter). But the AP4 Assault cannon will likely just be AP -2 because it had Rending. No longer having an "on/off" system of armour saves really opens up a greater deal of diversity. Eldar Bladestorm, for example, will probably translate to AP -1, although I anticipate the overall strength value of these weapons to go down. (str4, AP5 Cats will likely be Str3, AP -1 in 8th)
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/10 20:42:25
Battle cannon dealing multiple wounds is good - the 1 wound on a Carnifex was lame. On the other hand, I'd be OK if LRBT got nerfed AND cheaper - you could take more then.
I don't like that sponsons are probably auto include unless very expensive. This edition doesn't have trade offs other than points, since you can shoot everything at whatever you like in any direction while moving.
insaniak wrote: Twin linked going back to actually being two weapons is awesome.
Only oddity being that might just as well write "2 lascannons" rather than "twinlinked lascannon".
As has been mentioned though, some models may be restricted in how many weapons they can fire.
A Space marine likely can only fire 1 weapon, so having '2 Bolters' on his bike will be worthless as he could only fire 1.
But having a "Twin bolter" on his bike would be great.
I doubt this would apply to vehicles who can probably fire all their weapons and at different targets (confirmed by GW), but the convention is still needed for some models.
Speculation note: I don't think 'Relentless' will exist in 8th, so if vehicles move, heavy weapons will suffer -1 to hit.
-
I doubt we will see that level of detail and extra rules. Likely every model can fire everything it has (bikers shoot pistols too?). Vehicles may not even have ANY special rules. Terrain may just say "Vehicle key word = suffer a S4 hit when moving through Adminstratum ruins" or something. It has a level of simplicity I can appreciate to some extent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/10 20:44:59
2017/05/10 20:45:07
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
kestral wrote: This edition doesn't have trade offs other than points, since you can shoot everything at whatever you like in any direction while moving.
I really think the trade off will be -1 to hit with Heavy weapons while moving. I really doubt Relentless will exist in 8th. It's a rather elegant solution to the "Combat/Cruising speed/ Fast vehicle number of weapon can be shot" nonsense.
Bulldogging wrote: The converion of AP to -Rend has me wondering what they will do with "rending" weapons.
Prob will gain more rend when roll a 6 to hit or wound?
A straight port of the current rule would make them auto-wound on a six TH with a -4 SV mod (equiv to AP 1). That doesn't sound outrageous to me. I guess another option would be mortal wounds on a 6 TH, which is nastier, but still not broken IMO. Although that does get me thinking about the Punisher Cannon...
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all.
2017/05/10 20:50:45
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
Some I'll do it by hits so we don't have to worry about the BS to scatter problem...
7th
Nob in 'Eavy Armor
1 hit, .83 wounds = .83 models ID (1.7 wounds)
Nob in cover
1 hit, .83 wounds, .55 models ID (1.1 wounds)
Daemon Price
1 shot, 1 hit (only ever 1), .83 wounds, .83 total
8th
Nob in 'Eavy Armor
1 hit, .83 wounds, .7 through armor, 1.4 total
-- a little worse
Nob in cover
1 hit, .83 wounds, .55 through armor, 1.1 total
-- about the same
Daemon Price
3.5 gaks, 1.75 hits, 1.2 wounds, .8 through armor, 1.6 total
-- about twice as good
-- A DP in cover would be even stronger here than in 7th
It is a more universal weapon. It is also not supposed to be the most powerful cannon on the field.
2017/05/10 20:54:38
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
Fenris-77 wrote: 1D6 shots at BS 3 equals an average of 1.75 hits, not 1. Maybe I'm missing something...
I wanted a straight comparison, because the # of hits under scatter is a variable unknown.
That, and rounding down for a conservative estimate has a better effect for tactical planning. It means you can 'rely" on getting 1 hit even if the average is 1.75.
Quick question, while based on the limited information we have how is the game going to be quicker?
Infantry appear to suck at killing infantry and also in most cases vehicles.
vehicles appear to suck at killing infantry and in most cases other vehicles.
This combined with number of wounds and 6 always being a save, means killing stuff is going to be a slow process despite the various changes and the whole anything can kill anything thing.
Were past the point of buckets of dice and into the era of gallon drums full of dice for a lot of units. Which is a time sink and match this up with individual model based split fire and the high likelyhood that there will be a lot of rerolls because of "special" rules.
Also there will always be the thing that you will shoot with every unit even against sub-optimal targets due to everything can kill everything and you just never know. Which will slow the game down.
Unless they are increasing points massively to reduce Armies back to 2nd/3rd edition size which I highly doubt I don't see it being quicker.
Your just going to spend a lot of time depending on your army watching and rolling 10-80 dice per unit.
Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis
2017/05/10 21:03:52
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
I am just wondering about this: Russ's can come in threes. That quickly becomes 3d6 chances to hit and increases the chance of rolling more 2s and 3s. Mix that with the three Las Cannons + whatever is in the Sponsons, that could quickly take down a Multi-Wound Model quickly.
SeanDrake wrote: Quick question, while based on the limited information we have how is the game going to be quicker?
Infantry appear to suck at killing infantry and also in most cases vehicles.
vehicles appear to suck at killing infantry and in most cases other vehicles.
This combined with number of wounds and 6 always being a save, means killing stuff is going to be a slow process despite the various changes and the whole anything can kill anything thing.
So much wrong here...
There is no confirmation that a 6 is always a save and it likely does not exist.
You're also ignoring the myriad of weapons the do the jobs you say are missing...
2017/05/10 21:07:57
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
Bulldogging wrote: The converion of AP to -Rend has me wondering what they will do with "rending" weapons.
Rend exists because a mod-less system didn't allow for things with moderate effect on armour saves. It was either it granted a full save, or ignored it.
They wanted something that was effective against armour without having to put down AP2 or AP3. Thus Rend was born (because the other attempt was the Choppa rule and that was terrible).
Now, just give the weapon the right stats and it will be fine without really needing special rules.
Assault Cannon: Heavy 4, S6, AP -1, Damage d3
Now you have something that scares the pants off of infantry, heavy infantry, and light vehicles and there is no need for a single special rule. At most, give the thing a re-rollable to-wound roll. But I don't think it needs it.
2017/05/10 21:09:05
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
SeanDrake wrote: Quick question, while based on the limited information we have how is the game going to be quicker?
Infantry appear to suck at killing infantry and also in most cases vehicles.
vehicles appear to suck at killing infantry and in most cases other vehicles.
This combined with number of wounds and 6 always being a save, means killing stuff is going to be a slow process despite the various changes and the whole anything can kill anything thing.
Were past the point of buckets of dice and into the era of gallon drums full of dice for a lot of units. Which is a time sink and match this up with individual model based split fire and the high likelyhood that there will be a lot of rerolls because of "special" rules.
Also there will always be the thing that you will shoot with every unit even against sub-optimal targets due to everything can kill everything and you just never know. Which will slow the game down.
Unless they are increasing points massively to reduce Armies back to 2nd/3rd edition size which I highly doubt I don't see it being quicker.
Your just going to spend a lot of time depending on your army watching and rolling 10-80 dice per unit.
How do infantry suck at killing infantry? Everytime you kill something you force a battleshock test, that adds up over time. And you no longer have o all hit the same target. That means every big gun is going to try and hit the targets it was made for regardless of who it can charge etc. As for your rerolls comment so far there hasnt been mention of any rerolls, and I think twinlinked shows that theyd rather you throw more dice than have you reroll a few dice.
As for the shoot every unit against everything, honestly in most games if you were in range of something you usually shot at it, very rarely did a unit just sit there and do nothing unless you were playing a knight list and had an infantry squad with just base weapons.
2017/05/10 21:15:48
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
Fenris-77 wrote: 1D6 shots at BS 3 equals an average of 1.75 hits, not 1. Maybe I'm missing something...
I wanted a straight comparison, because the # of hits under scatter is a variable unknown.
Yup, I got that right after I posted. The issue with your model is precisely that it doesn't account for number of hits though. I get that we can't have an absolute number for what's under the template, but we could probably ballpark it.
With good placement the template w/o scatter might hit 3 or 4 guys, lets say 4 (let me know if you disagree). So on TH of 5+ you kill 3.36 Nobs (6.72 total wounds 'cause S8 vs T4). With mild scatter I'm going to ballpark 1.5 Nobs, so you kill 1.26 Nobs (2.52 wounds). Then there's the big scatter where you get bupkus. Averaged out, you looking at an average of 3.08, or a Nob and a half. And yeah, this is all spitballing, but it sounds reasonable (to me).
The BC in 8th averages 2.94 wounds against the same targets. So it's about the same. Keep in mind though, this is an example of two wound dudes on small bases, so the effectiveness of the template goes way down for, say, Tyranid warriors on bigger bases, while the 8th version doesn't change because of base size or placement. Again, I like the reliability of the 8th Ed version, specifically the much reduced chance of doing absolutely nothing. Less variation makes me much happier to put something on the table because it's less likely to crap out on me at a key moment in the game.
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all.
2017/05/10 21:15:48
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
SeanDrake wrote: Quick question, while based on the limited information we have how is the game going to be quicker?
Infantry appear to suck at killing infantry and also in most cases vehicles.
vehicles appear to suck at killing infantry and in most cases other vehicles.
This combined with number of wounds and 6 always being a save, means killing stuff is going to be a slow process despite the various changes and the whole anything can kill anything thing.
So much wrong here...
There is no confirmation that a 6 is always a save and it likely does not exist.
You're also ignoring the myriad of weapons the do the jobs you say are missing...
90% sure they all ready said rend can only reduce you to a 6 save other than the mortal wound equivalent and that could lead to a siuation like AoS where if it don't have mortal wounds it's a shelf warmer.
Yes I said based on the info we have but extrapolating from there for example the avenger bolt cannon which would in 7th/HH wipe out most of a tactical squad is now giving marines a 5+ save instead of no save.
In fact based on the possible ap to rend calculations people are posting any ap3 weapon just got a huge nerf against there previously intended target marines. Marines just got a pretty big buff without even taking the potential new benefits of cover into account, your likely going to need AT weapons to shift marines now or as I expect close combat. I think GW are just (Ctrl) + C/P straight from AoS and close combat is going to be where all the rend is. Don't have good dedicated CC units in your army then you are most likely screwed.
Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis
2017/05/10 21:17:41
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
Sure, there will be less variability, but still not impressive... Erasing tanks and monstrous creatures will be hard. On the positive side, it works against monstrous creatures and other multi-wound models just fine.
Hrm, look at the average number of shots needed to kill, and with Meltaguns you end up at about the same number of shots either way, tanks and MC's arent becoming any harder to kill with these weapons, MC's are likely to be dramatically easier to kill.
You wont have the possibility of a one shot kill anymore, but I think the Meltaguns are gonna work just fine, a Russ wont be tanking more shots than in 7E at least.
MCs will go down only against dedicated weapons. Since hordes and heavy infantry also only goes down with dedicated weapons, you can expect lists to pack a bit of everything, which means increased survivability for all targets.
Gone is the era of the scatter lasers and HYMP being a solution to everything.
2017/05/10 21:18:05
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
90% sure they all ready said rend can only reduce you to a 6 save other than the mortal wound equivalent and that could lead to a siuation like AoS where if it don't have mortal wounds it's a shelf warmer.
You'll have to provide some evidence for that. I've been watching this unfold very closely and I never saw anything about this.
Weapons Part 2: Dakka Boogaloo Q: I love the new template-less world of 40k. No more worrying about spacing everyone out because they all get hit the same anyway now. Though the term Pie Plate of Doom will be missed
A: The Pie and the Mega-Pie will live on in our hearts.
Q: Looking through the comments, It's incredible how blatantly communicated information can be misinterpreted so easily. I don't envy whoever has to answer the same question about twinlinked heavy bolters over and over again.
I'm scared to see what the Spartan assault tank can do now that God hammer landraiders get 4 lascannon shots. Not to mention the other insane arms forgeworld models have access too. Gonna be a lot of info to process on day 1. very excited none the less.
A: Answering the same question over and over again in new and exciting ways is pretty much half our life...!
Q: How much does this "heavy d6" weigh? Does this mean I cant my old plastic dice?
A: HAHA! Best comment of the day....
Q: From the bottom of my humble imperial guardsmen heart, thank you, just thank you gw ❤ Now back to the frontline, those filthy traitors won't die by themselves!
A: *sheds a tear of Imperial pride*
Q: I'm really looking forward for the new 40k.
but when do we see some close combat weapons and rules?
A: Real soon! There is a focus article on the way for melee weapons.
Q: So a number of guns got even better. Is there no love for melee weapons?
As an asside at some point will there be an article discussing how (or possibly if at all) Shooting and Melee have been balanced against one another because at the moment from what has been shown the already dominant shooting phase seems to have gained even more and the major weakness of melee, namely getting into melee before being shot to peices, has not really been addressed?
A: We haven't seen many melee weapons yet, but trust us when we say some of them are.. well...rancid. Just wait until you see what Kharn the Betrayer's axe does...
It's...graphic.
Q: So just to make sure he difference now between a Stormbolter and a Twin-linked bolted is that at long range they both fire 2 shots and at half range the two linked has 4 and the stormbolter is an assault weapon?
Spelling mistakes fixed- Storm Bolger, twin linked bolted
A: Hey Samuel - we haven't seen the stats for a stormbolter yet! We reckon they will do oh, so many shots...
Q: I am a bit confused on the big guns. Do multiple wounds spill over to other troopers? If not a battlecannons looks underwhelming due to rng?
I have to look at the point cost of a leman russ and its option to have a clear picture i think
A: No, they don't spill over. If Trooper Jenkins takes 6 wounds, he dies real bad. He doesn't die so hard that 5 of his mates die from sympathy pains...
Q: Will weapons with multiple damage (such as D6) cause wounds the same way Destroyer weapons currently do, ie if a model in a unit is hit, and the model dies, any excess wounds won't be carried over?
A: Hey Tara-. A weapon hits a target and saves are made. For each save failed, the model that failed the save takes the damage indicated. That means, against a Battle Cannon, D6 models will take D3 wounds each. That could be D6 really, really dead Chaos Cultists. It DOESN'T mean possibly 18 dead Cultists.
Q: Another big up for shooting armies...I see why now the game is fast paced. Everything will die very fast, i do not believe that we will see a lot of things coming in melee tho for now.
A: Assault isn't toast at all, guys... hang on for the melee weapons focus coming soon...
Q: Quick question on the Damage characteristic. Does a damage characteristic of 3 kill 3 one wound models? Or does it inflict 3 wounds to a single model that don't carry over to other models in the unit?
A: It does 3 wounds to one model. No carrying over onto other members of the unit.
Q: Wow! Looks intense! Double shots for Twin-Linked weapons at half range? That is pretty crazy! The twin linked heavy bolter says its Heavy 6, so it gets 12 shots at Half range? Wow!
A: Have a look again, Horton! The profile is for a twin linked Heavy Bolter. Standard is 3 shots, twin linked is 6, at all ranges.
Q: Will there be positive AP modifiers? For example would an AP 6 weapon in 7th edition concert into AP +1 in 8th one?
A: Not that we have seen yet, no.
Q: I'm really liking what I'm hearing so far. Can't wait for the new edition!! When?? When?? When??
A: Real soon....
Q: So is the new twin linked heavy bolter up to 6 shots, 12 at 18"?
A: Hey Matt - nope - it's heavy 3 for a standard gun, and heavy 6 for the twin-linked gun. It's range makes no difference on how many shots it gets.
Q: May I please ask what is the difference between rapid fire and twin-linked for 8th edition?
A: Hey Lian - sure thing. Rapid fire lets you double your shots at half range. Twin-linked gives you double shots at all ranges. Range makes no difference to twin-linked shots.
Q: Does this mean my Elysian Vulture now shoot 40 shots?! :O *drops jaw*
A: If a Punisher cannonstill has 20 shots... then..yes!
Q: Thats 6 shots at half range yes? Not 6 shots in total and 12 shots at half range.
A: It's 6 shots in total. This is not a rapid fire weapons, so no doubling the number on the profile as you do with rapid-fire.
Q: Battle Cannon is A1 steak sauce! Question I have now is: Will vehicles have the ability to target multiple units? Example: Leman Russ Battle Tank fires Battle Cannon at big Tyranid monster, fire the Heavy Bolters at the Genestealers.
A: Haha! Actually made us laugh, this!
EDIT: Tanks can split their weapons fire between different targets.
Q: So...Battlecannon has Heavy D6...does this mean up to 6 shots or up to 6 Auto-Hits like the Flamer...?
A: It's a random number of hits. If it was always 6 hits, it would be Heavy 6.
Q: Only imperium weapons again?
This is becoming a bad joke. Very disapointing.
A: That's actually the profile for a Chaos Space Marine Heavy Bolter....
Q: Question from yesterday, did all that apply to sgts?
A: No - Sgts are part of the unit.
Q: Wow, that means a lot of dakka!
A: It reeeeally is!
Q: What is Gauss going to do for Necrons? Tesla?
A: Wait for the Necron Faction Focus....
Q: Wow! Now a Land Raider Crusader can do 18 shoots
A: We count 24 on the twin-linked boltguns at half range...
Q: What about plasma pistols ?
A: They get so, so good.... just you wait and see!
So the D6 on the Battlecannon is HITS not SHOTS? Roll to hit, if you do, roll a D6 on the unit for the number of models hit? Anyone else reading it that way?
2017/05/10 21:25:50
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
SeanDrake wrote: Quick question, while based on the limited information we have how is the game going to be quicker?
Infantry appear to suck at killing infantry and also in most cases vehicles.
vehicles appear to suck at killing infantry and in most cases other vehicles.
This combined with number of wounds and 6 always being a save, means killing stuff is going to be a slow process despite the various changes and the whole anything can kill anything thing.
Were past the point of buckets of dice and into the era of gallon drums full of dice for a lot of units. Which is a time sink and match this up with individual model based split fire and the high likelyhood that there will be a lot of rerolls because of "special" rules.
Also there will always be the thing that you will shoot with every unit even against sub-optimal targets due to everything can kill everything and you just never know. Which will slow the game down.
Unless they are increasing points massively to reduce Armies back to 2nd/3rd edition size which I highly doubt I don't see it being quicker.
Your just going to spend a lot of time depending on your army watching and rolling 10-80 dice per unit.
How do infantry suck at killing infantry? Everytime you kill something you force a battleshock test, that adds up over time. And you no longer have o all hit the same target. That means every big gun is going to try and hit the targets it was made for regardless of who it can charge etc. As for your rerolls comment so far there hasnt been mention of any rerolls, and I think twinlinked shows that theyd rather you throw more dice than have you reroll a few dice.
As for the shoot every unit against everything, honestly in most games if you were in range of something you usually shot at it, very rarely did a unit just sit there and do nothing unless you were playing a knight list and had an infantry squad with just base weapons.
Well while I am guessing if you have a look at AoS almost 50% of all "special" rules are re-rolls with the rest being +/- modifiers and I do not see that changing when ported over.
Well the base infantry weapons we have seen so far have all been low str zero rend meaning even ork t shirts and guard cardboard is stopping marines rocket propelled bolts now. It could be the case that basic units just become special weapon caddies for the 1or2 men who actually do the majority of the killing other than dumb luck rolling 6's with the rest of the unit and then the opponent failing there save. As for battleshock there was about 10 pages of AoS people saying that it was no big deal so I am going to take there word for it.
Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis
2017/05/10 21:28:55
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
So the D6 on the Battlecannon is HITS not SHOTS? Roll to hit, if you do, roll a D6 on the unit for the number of models hit? Anyone else reading it that way?
No. They just only answered half the question. They got hung up on the "6 hits" part of it (rather than 1-6 hits). I'm fairly certain they clarified it somewhere.
That is what they say above but not what is in the article. The flamer clearly has the rule saying they automatically hit.
I don't think the BC is dramatically worse than it was in 7ed. The thing is the general consensus was that it sucked in 7ed so thats not exactly a good thing.
Need to see everything to know the situation. A Leman Russ with heavy bolter sponsons will take on average 4.6 rounds to kill a fellow Leman Russ. What this could mean (due to weaker stats with damage) is that on average you would not expect to kill each other in a game.
This matters because its how I feel things were in the old days before the massive damage increase. Win or lose you expected to end the game with half your army left and one side being tabled was a rarity rather than almost inevitable. It suggests morale is going to be the main way of clearing infantry - which also suggests vehicle lists will be good (points pending). Which isn't surprising since it is how it is in AoS.
I agree that this is unlikely to make the game faster.
2017/05/10 21:30:04
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
Anpu42 wrote: I am just wondering about this: Russ's can come in threes.
for now, that may change.
That quickly becomes 3d6 chances to hit and increases the chance of rolling more 2s and 3s. Mix that with the three Las Cannons + whatever is in the Sponsons, that could quickly take down a Multi-Wound Model quickly.
Sure, but then you're also looking at rougly 600pt unit. Assuming MM sponsons with stats similar to the basic melta, and assuming everything on all tanks is in range and LoS, against a multiwound T8 3+sv unit, you're putting fewer average (with a lower potential top end as wrll) wounds on a target than a pod full of Melta Sternguard at nearly half the price :(
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/05/10 21:30:29
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
ClockworkZion wrote: Time for the next Q&A Round Up!
[
So the D6 on the Battlecannon is HITS not SHOTS? Roll to hit, if you do, roll a D6 on the unit for the number of models hit? Anyone else reading it that way?
I would say he missed the point of the question and gave an answer inconsistent with the information shown in the main article. I believe most guard players will see it the same way as you though
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/10 21:33:54
Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis
2017/05/10 21:31:17
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 10th May 17 - Weapons Part 2
So the D6 on the Battlecannon is HITS not SHOTS? Roll to hit, if you do, roll a D6 on the unit for the number of models hit? Anyone else reading it that way?
That seems like an appropriate way to read that response, though I would take that with a grain of salt.
Other sources (including, IIRC, FLG, who were playtesting this edition) have suggests its merely the number of shots, and that you still have to roll to-hit as normal.
But IF its auto-hits and not merely shots... well, that would boost the effectiveness of a Battlecannon significantly.
(I'm guessing it isn't, since blast weapons traditionally had a to-hit equivalent, Scatter Dice, where templates did not)
