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.

Since the announcement that land raiders could possibly be killed by bolters eventually, maybe, in certain circumstances; 8th has already clearly failed and toppled GW as a company. So for those people sticking to 7th(clearly everyone just like how everyone still plays 6th or 5th) I just wanted to coalate a database of other totally useless units that aren't worth playing because they can possibly die to bolters so people can avoid playing these clearly hyper fragile totally useless units.

Riptides
Stormsurges
Dreadknights
Flying Hive Tyrants
Magnus the Red
Guilliman
Grav Centurions
Bloodthirsters
Iron Hand Chapter master
Librarius Conclaves
Tigurius
Iron Priests
Cawl
Celestine
Necron Wraiths
Seer Councils(Even buffed!)
Cyclopian Cabals
etc.

How dare GW put the vaunted Land Raider on the same level as these clearly fragile and pathetic models. I mean, the only thing that should be able to kill a land raider is every weapon in the game other than bolters or lasguns and yunno bushes, small trees, mild inclines, a gentle stream, a little hill or like a fencepost like we have now in 7th!

DAM YOU GW!!!




Real talk, in 8th there may well be many things that are objectionable and people may decide not to convert for one of any number of reasons that are all totally valid; and it is their right as hobbyists to do so. This particular line of reasoning, however, is illogical and nonsensical and should never have gained as much traction as it did. This is the 'anti-vax' of 40k and while some of you may be very worried about how the changes to the new edition will effect your hobby and your fun and your money going forward, please, please, please stop, take a second and let this one particular issue go.

If you give vehicles upwards of 10 wounds, and statistically only one out of 40-50 small arms shots cause a wound, then vehicles are going to be harder to kill than they were before.

 Luciferian wrote:
If you give vehicles upwards of 10 wounds, and statistically only one out of 40-50 small arms shots cause a wound, then vehicles are going to be harder to kill than they were before.

Also if you make bushes a little bit less lethal.

Yup, exactly that. They might still die quickly to meltas, railguns and whatever 8e Distortion weapons will do, but then, those are supposed to be tank-busting weapons, belike.

I don't really care. They got rid of the AV system and put vehicles on Toughness system which makes me immensely hopeful for the future of the Imperial Guard.

ERJAK wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
If you give vehicles upwards of 10 wounds, and statistically only one out of 40-50 small arms shots cause a wound, then vehicles are going to be harder to kill than they were before.

Also if you make bushes a little bit less lethal.

I'm not 'Concerned that it will make vehicles less powerful', I think it's just really fething stupid. I should not be able to so much as scratch the paint on a Land Raider by throwing sticks and rocks at it, no matter how many I throw. The same goes for firing Lasguns - They SHOULD NOT be able to hurt Land Raiders. I should not be able to punch a Warlord Titan to death, no matter how much time I have.

jade_angel wrote:
Yup, exactly that. They might still die quickly to meltas, railguns and whatever 8e Distortion weapons will do, but then, those are supposed to be tank-busting weapons, belike.

8th has dispensed with the D.

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'm not 'Concerned that it will make vehicles less powerful', I think it's just really fething stupid. I should not be able to so much as scratch the paint on a Land Raider by throwing sticks and rocks at it, no matter how many I throw. The same goes for firing Lasguns - They SHOULD NOT be able to hurt Land Raiders. I should not be able to punch a Warlord Titan to death, no matter how much time I have.

Having units be immune to most weapons in the game is bad game design though

It does seem an awful lot of people want a crappy to play war simulation over a fun war game

Sounds like a great day for the grot rebellion though.

If it stops vehicles from being blown up in a single shot then we should welcome the new rules with open arms. If you can think up a solution that also stops lasguns from hurting them as well then say it and maybe its good enough for a house rule.

I just like having my big expensive, took-way-too-much-time-painting-it models stay around on the table for a bit longer than 1 tau shooting phase.

Can't have those land raiders be better than our riptides now can we!

 Azreal13 wrote:
It does seem an awful lot of people want a crappy to play war simulation over a fun war game

Even then, if you put enough small arms fire on an actual tank there's a chance something will be damaged. It's not like steel is a magical substance that has an inherent invulnerability against everything that isn't labeled as an anti-armor weapon. The right 5.56 or 5.45x39 load will punch straight through AR500 steel - it's just a question of velocity. Which is not to say that small arms are an efficient or wise means of taking out armored targets, but nor would lasguns or bolters be against a high toughness, high wound model.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It does seem an awful lot of people want a crappy to play war simulation over a fun war game

Which is kind of what I have been saying. You have two options in a wargame: abstraction or simulation. One makes for quicker games that can handle larger amounts of models and streamlines the game experience, while the other makes things very detailed and works very well for smaller model count games and has a much different experience. One is not inherently better than the other, but not everyone is looking for the same kind of game, and that needs to be understood.

But as far as 8th edition is concerned, I am mildly indifferent and excited at the same time. I am indifferent to the rules changes, as those are just representations and abstractions of real or fictional actions of warfare. What I am most excited for is the fresh start to the rules system. Having played since 5th edition, I can honestly say that each edition change wasn't a new game, but updates to the same game. I am excited to see how the game is streamlined, and I am excited to see how they change up army compositions.

My biggest issue with 40K is the exact same as in Age of Sigmar and Warmahordes: the players. And even then, the players themselves aren't the problem. I don't enjoy playing in WAAC, ultra competitive games. I prefer a much more laid back, relaxing game that I don't have to worry about my rules knowledge getting questioned and other people telling me how I *should* be playing my army. There is nothing wrong with playing hard games and trying to win, but that's just not for me. I haven't played a 40K tournament and enjoyed EVERY game since 5th edition, so I don't play in them. To the folks that like it, great! Good for you! I'm going to play my narrative games and Apocalypse-sized CAD armies against like-minded players and have fun in my way.

I eagerly await 8th edition. I think what I am most excited for though is the potential for official GW Narrative support.

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'm not 'Concerned that it will make vehicles less powerful', I think it's just really fething stupid. I should not be able to so much as scratch the paint on a Land Raider by throwing sticks and rocks at it, no matter how many I throw. The same goes for firing Lasguns - They SHOULD NOT be able to hurt Land Raiders. I should not be able to punch a Warlord Titan to death, no matter how much time I have.

on a 10-15 HP scale a single point of damage doesn't represent a full-on armour breach, it's maybe just a melted track slowing your tank down, thanks to an unlucky lasgun hit to a joint or something. A Lasgun-armed platoon of Guardsmen won't seriously harm a Land Raider for example. It's just that single super-lucky hit that's being represented by that 1 wound you loose, which will only have a tiny effect on the tank anyway.

 Azreal13 wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
Yup, exactly that. They might still die quickly to meltas, railguns and whatever 8e Distortion weapons will do, but then, those are supposed to be tank-busting weapons, belike.

8th has dispensed with the D.

That's why I phrased it quite that way. Distortion weapons - that is, wraithcannons - were only D in 7e. And then, only when the 7e Eldar dex dropped. Before that, they were S10 with some special rules. Let's see what they do with them in 8e - I doubt the answer is "delete Wraithguard entirely", since they said you'd be able to use all existing models. I bet they'll just be really strong, good damage and rend, and maybe sometimes they'll deal mortal wounds or the equivalent. But probably still anti-tank-ish or monster-buster-ish.

I kind of like the idea. Now I won't be as likely to have a Land Raider nuked (sometimes 1-shotted) in Turn 1.

...now I need to -find- the Land Raider.

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'm not 'Concerned that it will make vehicles less powerful', I think it's just really fething stupid. I should not be able to so much as scratch the paint on a Land Raider by throwing sticks and rocks at it, no matter how many I throw. The same goes for firing Lasguns - They SHOULD NOT be able to hurt Land Raiders. I should not be able to punch a Warlord Titan to death, no matter how much time I have.

Once again friend, you can lose your landraider to a BUSH in the game TODAY.

 Don Savik wrote:
If it stops vehicles from being blown up in a single shot then we should welcome the new rules with open arms. If you can think up a solution that also stops lasguns from hurting them as well then say it and maybe its good enough for a house rule.

I just like having my big expensive, took-way-too-much-time-painting-it models stay around on the table for a bit longer than 1 tau shooting phase.

Can't have those land raiders be better than our riptides now can we!

It's not that hard to do, really. Give tanks a rule that reduces any regular (non-mortal*) hit by one damage as long as they're above 50% health. That means a lasgun (1 damage) does zero, while a plasma gun (1 mortal* damage), a small bomb (1D3 damage ) and a melta (1D3 mortal* damage) will be able to damage tanks. If the tank's already damaged enough their armour is also damaged, so that extra bit of defense is gone and a lasgun might be able to hit something critical and do damage that way.

* = mortal wounds are "ignores your defenses" wounds (anything AP2 could be "migrated" to this), they'd be probably named differently but the concept could be taken from AoS and applied to 40k.

If it makes people feel better about enough bolter fire being able to hurt Land Raiders, think of it as staged penetration. A single shot may do minuscule damage to where it struck, but enough in the same place may get through. We are talking about super-sci-fantasy weapons of the really far future, after all. It's not so unreasonable to think that enough shots from infantry weapons could degrade heavy vehicle armor. I'm sure modern militaries would build that into their current infantry smallarms if it were cost-effective to do so.

ERJAK wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'm not 'Concerned that it will make vehicles less powerful', I think it's just really fething stupid. I should not be able to so much as scratch the paint on a Land Raider by throwing sticks and rocks at it, no matter how many I throw. The same goes for firing Lasguns - They SHOULD NOT be able to hurt Land Raiders. I should not be able to punch a Warlord Titan to death, no matter how much time I have.

Once again friend, you can lose your landraider to a BUSH in the game TODAY.

I don't think this can be overstated. I can imagine a situation in which massed small arms fire damages a tank. I can also imagine a situation in which a bush damages a tank, but it's more embarrassing and most likely involves a demotion and/or remedial training.

I for one welcome our 8e overlords.

SJ

Hmmmmm, a new method of bush based combat weapons, i shall use this to kill more heretical scum.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Hmmmmm, a new method of bush based combat weapons, i shall use this to kill more heretical scum.

This made me shamelessly laugh.

 Verviedi wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Hmmmmm, a new method of bush based combat weapons, i shall use this to kill more heretical scum.

This made me shamelessly laugh.

I think if anything can hurt anything and low power things like lasguns need to hit, to wound of a 6 followed by another 5 or 6, followed by a 2+ or 3+ save then you are going to need either the best luck in the world or loaded dice to reliably drop land raiders or heavy units a single wound from a large pool.

even the 4+ to hit 6 then 5+ to wound then 3+ save would be a 0.9826% chance to wound so 100 lasgun shots would have a 98.26% chance to take 1 wound

in a game something like this is certainly important to be possible but unlikely.

for those arguing a real life equivalent and comparing a laser weapon to a solid projectile carbine type cartridge remember that laser will be burning and steel melts so 100 lasers at it might to a little damage. think of it like a sand blaster. 1 grain of sand hitting steel at 120 psi doesn't do much, but 100 grains of sand hitting that piece of steel will pit it.

"even the 4+ to hit 6 then 5+ to wound then 3+ save would be a 0.9826% chance to wound so 100 lasgun shots would have a 98.26% chance to take 1 wound"

That's not how statistics works.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Hmmmmm, a new method of bush based combat weapons, i shall use this to kill more heretical scum.

You may laugh, but consider this: in the current rules terrain pieces can't be gotten rid of, and that's unlikely to change. So while bolters or even lasguns could eventually kill a land raider in 8th, no amount of fire from any gun can destroy a bush. In a 1v1 vs a particularly thorny bush that counts as dangerous terrain and a vehicle in 7e, the bush will never lose. It may not destroy the vehicle unless the pilot tried to repeatedly ram the bush, but the vehicle will never defeat the bush.

Next edition we have 5 army books. I'm calling book one Imperium, book two Chaos, book three aeldari, book four xenos. Book 5? Shrubbery .

So, for you people doing the math. I have 50 eldar ranges in my eldar collection. How many rangers will I need to kill a landraider?

Youn wrote:
So, for you people doing the math. I have 50 eldar ranges in my eldar collection. How many rangers will I need to kill a landraider?

We don't have the LR's stats yet, it is all speculation.