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.

 Megaknob wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.

Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.

if its not space marine and its getting some form of boost, the game is automatically broken.

you are also not allowed to be optimistic about CC in this thread, any optimism will be beaten out of you cyberly by a shooty army power gamer math hammer guy.

Orks and Dark Eldar need boosts badly. Eldar need a solid nerf bat to the knees. Marines are strong, but getting rid of Skyhammer Annihilation and Free transports will help a lot in that regard.

I am hopeful for better balance. But Eldar are the one faction where balance means nerfing the 1-2 most complained about units, then buffing everything else to compensate.

CC, I really like the balance of power/force weapons they gave us. A nice smooth progression of brute force vs precision. I wonder if GK Halberds are going to be basically the same as a force axe now.

Lots of Eldar power is in their units and less so their formations where as the marines a lot of it was in formations. As Major said unit wise they are definitely in need of a nerf to bring them down to the average. Prior to the space marine formations of doom and deathstars the Eldar were the top race by far. I remember when it was a very common sight to see them just trouncing the boards.

Eldar have been my army since the beginning of 3rd edition and they have always been at least partly broken. It's mainly because they have so much choice in their units and they are so specialized. When you have to balance out the low survivability with heavy hitting it can topple over quite easily. Especially fi you have 30 this kind of units to cover.

I'm interested to see how the game will play out. As it feels now, there might be a race for big guns, with the vehicles being a lot harder to kill without them and maybe even with them. Big thing will be the dynamic between the shooting and close combat. If the close combat is not great enough threat, the game will stay as "dice rolling competition" who shoots/sustains shooting most. Big thing why I haven't been too into 40k in past years has been the lack of interaction. Sometimes with bit slower opponent it may take almost an hour in the first turns that you don't get to do anything but roll saves and remove models. AoS doesn't have this issue so much, as there isn't so much shooting and when you get to close combat, it's much more interactive, but if the close combat has a small role, the game can be quite boring to play. This may be because of playing mainly Antares, DzC, Batman and Infinity for the time period of 6/7th ed. 40k, and being spoiled by the alternating activation and reaction mechanisms.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.

Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.

if its not space marine and its getting some form of boost, the game is automatically broken.

you are also not allowed to be optimistic about CC in this thread, any optimism will be beaten out of you cyberly by a shooty army power gamer math hammer guy.

Orks and Dark Eldar need boosts badly. Eldar need a solid nerf bat to the knees. Marines are strong, but getting rid of Skyhammer Annihilation and Free transports will help a lot in that regard.

I am hopeful for better balance. But Eldar are the one faction where balance means nerfing the 1-2 most complained about units, then buffing everything else to compensate.

CC, I really like the balance of power/force weapons they gave us. A nice smooth progression of brute force vs precision. I wonder if GK Halberds are going to be basically the same as a force axe now.

Nerf and Buff aren't really the right words here, they're basically all entirely new factions. Getting rid of skyhammer doesn't necessarily mean anything either way about how powerful marines are comparatively, same with scatt packs and riptide wing and 95% of chaos daemons.

ERJAK wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.

Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.

if its not space marine and its getting some form of boost, the game is automatically broken.

you are also not allowed to be optimistic about CC in this thread, any optimism will be beaten out of you cyberly by a shooty army power gamer math hammer guy.

Orks and Dark Eldar need boosts badly. Eldar need a solid nerf bat to the knees. Marines are strong, but getting rid of Skyhammer Annihilation and Free transports will help a lot in that regard.

I am hopeful for better balance. But Eldar are the one faction where balance means nerfing the 1-2 most complained about units, then buffing everything else to compensate.

CC, I really like the balance of power/force weapons they gave us. A nice smooth progression of brute force vs precision. I wonder if GK Halberds are going to be basically the same as a force axe now.

Nerf and Buff aren't really the right words here, they're basically all entirely new factions. Getting rid of skyhammer doesn't necessarily mean anything either way about how powerful marines are comparatively, same with scatt packs and riptide wing and 95% of chaos daemons.

While I agree that getting rid of formations doesn't necessarily mean anything either way about how powerful a faction will be/remain, I don't think we'll see that radical a difference on the factions themselves. And GW knows this - I fully expect to be able to play my DA the way I was playing in 7th edition and before: Greenwing, DW, RW or mixes with the expected combinations.

GW will just find a different way to slap it into the gameplay, just like it was before Formations were birthed from whatever hellhole they came from.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
So you were upset that datasheets might have needless USRs on them and now that they don't have all the USRs on them you're upset?

Where did I say I was upset?

The constant sarcasm and criticism you've constantly put out since the beginning of this topic does make it seem like it.

I'm curious how fast Banshee's will be compared to SS however.

'tis called having a different opinion.

I would love to see a buff to Dark Eldar and Orks. I don't play either faction but I would love to see them on the table more. As a newer mostly casual player, I can honestly say that I have only faced either faction one time.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoiler:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
So you were upset that datasheets might have needless USRs on them and now that they don't have all the USRs on them you're upset?

Where did I say I was upset?

The constant sarcasm and criticism you've constantly put out since the beginning of this topic does make it seem like it.

'tis called having a different opinion.

Not saying I support any of these comments (complaining publicly about another poster is usually pointless), but having an opinion and the way you express that opinion are entirely different things.

 Rippy wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.

Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?

Yes.

Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.

Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?

Yes.

Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!

To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoiler:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
So you were upset that datasheets might have needless USRs on them and now that they don't have all the USRs on them you're upset?

Where did I say I was upset?

The constant sarcasm and criticism you've constantly put out since the beginning of this topic does make it seem like it.

'tis called having a different opinion.

And he's free to have it, just as I'm mentioning why one might think he sounds upset.

I am curious to see what they'll be showing with points later on. I wonder if it'll be fully detailed or if they are going to hide some bits of it.

 Mymearan wrote:

Spoiler:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.

Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?

Yes.

Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!

To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!

Is it really that worse than wolfy marines and their wolf bolters and their murder dreadnought?
Okay maybe it's even worse, I haven't looked into it but the name really makes me not want to ^^. Beside, don't they all look like the same hulking, barechested pile of muscle and berserker-style helmet and axes?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

Spoiler:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.

Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?

Yes.

Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!

To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!

Is it really that worse than wolfy marines and their wolf bolters and their murder dreadnought?
Okay maybe it's even worse, I haven't looked into it but the name really makes me not want to ^^. Beside, don't they all look like the same hulking, barechested pile of muscle and berserker-style helmet and axes?

Fear the Wrathmongers, Bloodsecrator, Bloodstoker!

Though some are armored at least.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

Spoiler:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.

Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?

Yes.

Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!

To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!

Is it really that worse than wolfy marines and their wolf bolters and their murder dreadnought?
Okay maybe it's even worse, I haven't looked into it but the name really makes me not want to ^^. Beside, don't they all look like the same hulking, barechested pile of muscle and berserker-style helmet and axes?

Actually, while they are all muscle and waxed chestss, they do have some of the best models in the entire fantasy range, namely Slaughterpriest 1, Slaughterpriest 2and Lord on Juggernaut although that's quite enough off-topic...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Median Trace wrote:
I would love to see a buff to Dark Eldar and Orks. I don't play either faction but I would love to see them on the table more. As a newer mostly casual player, I can honestly say that I have only faced either faction one time.

We have a guy who plays both and I'm expecting he'll be very happy with 8th...

It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?

If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?

If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?

My understanding is that you roll a d6 to see how many to-hit dice you roll. And yeah, it does make the battle cannon seem pretty underwhelming. Oh well, maybe the variants will be more appealing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?

If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?

I don't think there's been any clarification on that, actually. At least that I've seen.

But logic would say roll D6 shots and the roll to hit on those.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?

If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?

I don't think there's been any clarification on that, actually. At least that I've seen.

But logic would say roll D6 shots and the roll to hit on those.

Is heavy 3 3 hits or 3 shots? Same system. You can also look at the flamer section which specifically says automatic hits.

Grimdakka wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?

If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?

My understanding is that you roll a d6 to see how many to-hit dice you roll. And yeah, it does make the battle cannon seem pretty underwhelming. Oh well, maybe the variants will be more appealing.

Well it's slightly better against tanks than a single Lascannon and about as good as 2 heavy bolters against typical Infantry.
It also happens to be better against infantry than a single Lascannon and better against Tanks than 2 Heavy Bolters.
It also butchers decently tough, multi-wound infantry better than either.

Is it underwhelming? Probably a bit yeah, but I wouldn't say it's terrible until we see the points.
I do think people will go for the more specialised options though (Punisher/Eradicator for Infantry, Vanquisher/Exterminator for Tanks, Executioner for multi-wound Infantry). And no doubt the Demolisher will just be a better Battlecannon with a shorter range, which depending on the Mv value of a Leman Russ may not even matter too much.

It's a generalist weapon. Not doing as well against specific targets than tailored variants is sort of the point.

Alcibiades wrote:
It's a generalist weapon. Not doing as well against specific targets than tailored variants is sort of the point.

Too bad there are better generalists and generally you are better off with specialists anyway. Especially as best defence is good offence so you want to kill enemy first.

Battlecannon is like a better lasscanon now. Why is that a bad thing?

Alcibiades wrote:
It's a generalist weapon. Not doing as well against specific targets than tailored variants is sort of the point.

The problem is that it doesn't do well against, well, a lot of things. And that's the point of a general weapon, isn't it? - it's not to be dedicated to one thing but doing well against most.... which it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?

If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?

I don't think there's been any clarification on that, actually. At least that I've seen.

But logic would say roll D6 shots and the roll to hit on those.

Is heavy 3 3 hits or 3 shots? Same system. You can also look at the flamer section which specifically says automatic hits.

I know that - that's why I said "logic would say".

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I know that - that's why I said "logic would say".

Well it's not even needed to go to logic to know d6 is shots and not hits.

You have heavy d6 and heavy 3. Unless other rules say other(and note battlecannon has no special rules...) they work same way. Therefore for d6 to be hits the 3 are also automatic hits.

tneva82 wrote:
Unless other rules say other(and note battlecannon has no special rules...) they work same way.

Which would no doubt be the logical way to go. However I have long learned not to always expect logic from GW. So I prefer clarifications right off the bat.

I'm still curious if a Heavy D6 weapon like the battle cannon will have to apply those D6 hits to different targets. (I.E. no more then 1 hit per model) If not, the battle cannon is amazing against vehicles, potentially 6 shots, 6 hits each causing d3 wounds, this could one shot dreadnoughts.

I am entertained how a battlecannon is "crap" because it only averages 1.75 hits, when any single shot weapon for Guard averages 0.5 hits !

I wonder how many of these changes will make it into GHB2 for AoS. I mean, damage not spilling over to enemies would change the power level of a lot of units.

By the looks of things people wont be happy with the Battle cannon until it's one shotting Titans. It's had a noticable boost to it's ability to hit and people are complaining that it's bad.