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.

Howdy,

With 8th Edition coming and bringing with it substantial changes to how weapons interact with armour saves, how do we see current weapons changing and what weapons do we think will benefit the most?
I know 30k will stick with 7th edition for a while yet but as I'm about to build an Ordo Reductor army I'm curious about my weapon load outs.

Straight away I can see quad heavy bolters becoming far more popular, 12 shots each with -1 to armour will force alot of saves on units. especially Quad-heavy bolter rapier units.

Think anything with "Twin Linked" written next to it just became what it should have been all along, never liked that rule.

Seems this is going to be about volume of fire

4 shot reaper autocannons *drools*

Deredeos should be hell on legs.

Spartans get a firepower upgrade, although 8 lascannon shots will probably most often translate to 4 hits since Spartans are usually on the move.

Assuming Rad weaponry will still have its signature lethality against non-vehicles, and that melée should be easier to pull off, my vote goes for such.
They'll still be a death toll for blobs, but now utterly horrific against Robots and the like.

Chainswords will be a thing. Imagine this: 20 Space Marine Legion Tactical Squad with Bolters and Fury of the Legion. Then, they get to charge into close combat with chainswords. Yes, I know, currently you can't move or assault the turn you use Fury of The Legion. Do you really think they are going to keep those restrictions on it into 8th? Imagine- 40 Bolters shots at 12", and then at least two attacks each when they get into close combat with chainswords, and those that are not in melee range can fire bolt pistols instead. Brutal.

Twin Linked Autocannons will be the best weapons in the game. Guess my insane 10 model Devastator Squad with Autocannons wasn't such a bad idea after all. The Sicarian Battle Tank just might reclaim its title as "Best Tank in the Game". The Deredo... that will be one scary, and deadly dreadnought.

Heavy Bolters will suddenly be viable! To get the most bang for the buck you are going to want many of them. Unfortunately, currently only vehicles have access to heavy bolters. We might actually see dreads with heavy bolters, but I have a feeling that heavy bolters will still be over shadowed by autocannons and assault cannons.

In choosing weapon load outs, multiple shots > single shots, multiple wounds > high rend values. Strength will almost be a tertiary consideration- when anything can wound, which is better? A single, high strength shot, or multiple low strength shots? The assumptions here are based a lot on how wounding and saves work in AoS. One of the most powerful units in AoS are Orruk Arrowboys- Range 18" two attacks each, hit on a 5+, Wound on a 4+, no rend, 1 dam. They have a special rule that if you have more than 20 in a unit, they get one more shot. They are cheap enough and have no restriction on unit size, so it's very feasible to take a block of 60+ in a single unit. 60 models means 180 shots, 60 hits, and 30 wounds. It doesn't matter what kind of save you have when you have to make 30 of them. 60 models in the unit also means a +6 to bravery which means the unit is basically fearless and won't fail a battleshock test.

Rend values... It sounds like there will be two types of wounds, regular wounds, and mortal wounds. A save will be affected by rend values and applies to wounds only. You won't get a save vs. a mortal wound. Rend values won't apply to mortal wounds. Invulnerable saves will work against wounds and mortal wounds. Finally, there will be a third kind of save, that will be something along the lines of "Every time this model takes a wound or mortal wound, roll a d6: on a 5, it ignores the wound." Kinda like feel no pain now. The save mechanic hasn't been properly demonstrated to us yet. For example, can I have a 1+, or even a ,-1, -2 armor save? In AoS, you can. After you compute your armor save, you apply the rend value to it. For example, I could have a unit with a 3+ save, but it's in cover, -1, and there is a wizard nearby, and he casts a spell adding another -1, the unit has a special ability that adds -1 to shooting attacks, and finally, my General has an ability that gives a unit within 6" a -1: So my armor save is a -1+. Then my opponent shoots me with a crossbow that has a -1 rend value, so my save goes up to a 0+. However, in AoS, a save of 1 always fails. I haven't read if that's how it works in 8th edition yet. I expect it to, but we'll have to wait and see. If it does work like that, then rend values, much like strength, will be a tertiary value, as a roll of 1 always fails. Another way to look at this: My save is 3+. I'm in cover, so I get +1 to my save roll (so now all I need to roll is a 2 or better on a d6 to succeed). Wizard's spell adds +1 to the roll (now I need a 1+ to save on the d6), unit has +1 vs. shooting (now I need a 0+) and my Warlord uses his command ability giving me another +1 to the roll (now I need to roll a -1 on the d6...). Then we add the rend value to the d6 save roll: -1. So we had +1 (cover), +1 (spell), (+1 unit ability), +1 (CMD ability), -1 rend. When I make the d6 save, I'm adding +3 to the roll. My save value is a 3+, so I should automatically pass any saves, but a 1 always fails. Now, as GW has stated anything has the possibility of wounding something, that seems to indicate that a 1 on the d6 always fails a save. The discriminator there becomes "Can I wound it?", and the answer is yes, a six always wounds. This is where massed fire will always be better then any other characteristic of the weapon.

So the algorithm for weapon selection will be something like this:

# attacks > Hit values > Strength value (6's always wound) > Rend value (1's always fail) > Damage value

I placed damage value dead last, because it sounds like a shot that does multiple wounds does not carry over. As in, there is no "wound pool" that you subtract wounds from. If you hit a single wound model and do six wounds, congratulations! You killed that model six times over. The five extra wounds just... go away. Also, saves are performed on hits, not on wounds. If you have a single hit that does three wounds, you make one save vs. that single hit, and if you fail, you lose 3 wounds. If you succeed, you move on to the next hit. Finally, allocating wounds- you remove models- if you have five models with two wounds each and take four wounds, you can't distribute one wound to four models and then take saves. Instead, you roll all your saves, and apply them to each model. When that model is reduced to zero wounds, you remove it and move to the next model until you run out of models or wounds.

This does not mean that there isn't a place for a Lascannon that has strength 9, rend -3 and d3 damage. If it's a single shot, then it's best target will be something with a lot of wounds. You could also calculate how many lasguns it would take to do the same amount of wounds to a high toughness target.

Thanks to the 6's always wound and 1's always fail, you have a 1 out of 36 chance of any weapon in the game of causing a wound regardless of the toughness or save value of the target.

# attacks > Hit values > Strength value (6's always wound) > Rend value (1's always fail) > Damage value

Twin linked weapons in general get a big buff.
I expect the Spartan and other super-heavy class vehicles will have a 'heavy' keyword that allows them to move and shoot at full BS.

Combi-bolters, the anvillus autocannon, the avenger bolt cannon and twin-linked volkite weapons are big beneficiaries of twin linked-> 2x shots.

I expect the fellblade accelerator cannon to also improve significantly.

I expect the cost of some weapons will also change dramatically depending upon thier new performance, to the point where spamming certain weapons will be cost inefficient or absurdly wasteful against certain targets. (see the lasguns vs landraiders argument)

With twin-linked doubling rate of fire, I can see some amazing things with quad heavy bolters on Rapiers.

Plus as the Solar Auxilia, the deliciousness of a twin-linked volkite demi-culverin flinging 10 Strength 7 shots at a squad is just amazing.

I'm liking the look of running one or maybe two Macrocarid Explorators with twin linked Phased plasma fusil and sponson TL Mauler Bolt Cannons. 18 shots at -2 or -3 rending should be alot of fun.

Interested the see the impact of template removal on torrent weapons, if Irradiation Engines are only D6 hits then I can't see much appeal. 2 D6 would be amazing though.

From the sounds of all of the weapon "upgrades" I'm not seeing how any games will last beyond turn 2. Everything is getting killier.

 djones520 wrote:
From the sounds of all of the weapon "upgrades" I'm not seeing how any games will last beyond turn 2. Everything is getting killier.

The closest comparison to this style of combat is Age of Sigmar. Even with all the Rends, multiple wounds, mortal wounds, etc. etc., the game still lasts 5-6 turns easily. I play Ironjawz, and have zero shooting. I've faced all shooty armies, and I was still able to foot slog across the table and get into close combat. I have also been shot off the board by turn 2, but I've also managed to destroy my opponent's entire army in close combat by turn 2. People really underestimate just how fast Ironjawz can be. I'd say the Pitched Battles (tournament play) hasn't been that extreme, while narrative play (no points, bring whatever) usually is that extreme.

If anything, the game will play much, much faster. There will be no "tar pitting" of units in close combat, and no invincible Death Stars that just move from one combat to the next until the game is over. Really, the whole dynamic of the game is changing, and you'll have to learn new strategy and tactics to be successful. What worked in 7th edition is NOT going to work in 8th.

The removal of template weapons is a good thing. It appears that most of those weapons now get multiple shots- which simulates actually placing a template over a unit and then rolling for scatter. The upside here is that you are going to tag at least one of the bad guys, and never hit any of your guys. This will also end the arguments about blast template placement and how many guys are hit. The downside is that you might not be able to hit as many models as you could before. It's a good trade off in my opinion.

The game already plays fast. We on average play 3k-3.5k games, and they take just as long, if not less time then an 1850 40K game.

Yeah its amazing how much quicker a game goes when your not consulting 7 rule books and constantly looking things up.

 djones520 wrote:
The game already plays fast. We on average play 3k-3.5k games, and they take just as long, if not less time then an 1850 40K game.

Are you referring to 30K games vs. 40K games?

Just as a comparison with Age of Sigmar: A 2,000 point game of AoS, which has around the same number of models as an 1850 point game of 40K, plays in about an hour and a half, if that. Most of my games are over in one hour at that level. Usually much faster as I don't have any shooting or magic in my army. So all I do is the Command Phase, Move Phase, and Fight Phase.

My experience has been that the larger the 30K game, the longer it takes. If you could take more Lords of War choices, the game can go very quickly. However, when it's only 1 LoW choice, it's usually a Primarch, and then he is rolling in a Spartan with his bodyguard (usually Special Terminators)- easily 1,000 points in that basket. They crush anything else on the table except another Primarch Death Star. The other 2,000-2,500 points is almost immaterial as nothing else can really do anything against that Death Star. A lot depends on which Legions are fighting, what the scenario is, etc. etc. I did watch an entertaining game once where a player destroyed the Spartan that had the Death Star, and then his Falchion killed the rest of the Death Star. Lots of lucky rolls there, but entertaining to watch.

If you are removing more models in each phase of the game, then the game will speed up. No templates means the game right there will speed up. Break tests are great for removing even more models from a unit. Consider- you lose some models due to shooting, then you take your break test: You could lose even more models. While we won't see lucky shots popping a Land Riader on turn 1, we won't see the invincible Land Raider that lasts the entire game either. If the game plays at all like Age of Sigmar, there will be a tipping point, usually around turn 3-4, where one side will have a distinct advantage, and it will be very, very difficult for the other side to come back from that kind of deficit. Again, this depends on the scenario. I had one model left on the table while playing vs. a shooty army, but it was a Hero, and he was standing next to an objective, and so I won the game because I had more victory points then my opponent (you score VP's for each Hero next to an objective, and at the end of the game, even if you table your opponent, the army with the most VP's wins). I expect similar mechanics in 8th edition, where only certain units will be able to score objectives (none of this "Objective Secured" crap), and it will be defined by the Scenario, not the army selection or Formation.

We don't know the granularity of the points yet in 8th edition. This of course, will have a large effect on how many models will be on the table. It's safe to say that high points means more models meaning longer games. GW will have designed an "ideal game" though of so many models on the table, and that it should take this much time to play. We just don't know what that is yet.

Deadlier weapons, the removal of more models during shooting and combat, and the loss of more models during the Break Test, no more template weapons, and (hopefully) less rules to remember/look up will make for faster games.

The Custodes are going to have a field day, if all their twin-linked guns just get double the shots. Jetbikes with 2d3 lascannon shots, two massive-strength exoshock shots or six lower-strength shots out of the Arachnus blaze cannons on the Pallas and the Coronus, two Adrathic Destructor shots from each Terminator (or four from the Contemptor-Achillus)....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tamwulf wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The game already plays fast. We on average play 3k-3.5k games, and they take just as long, if not less time then an 1850 40K game.

Are you referring to 30K games vs. 40K games?

Just as a comparison with Age of Sigmar: A 2,000 point game of AoS, which has around the same number of models as an 1850 point game of 40K, plays in about an hour and a half, if that. Most of my games are over in one hour at that level. Usually much faster as I don't have any shooting or magic in my army. So all I do is the Command Phase, Move Phase, and Fight Phase.

My experience has been that the larger the 30K game, the longer it takes. If you could take more Lords of War choices, the game can go very quickly. However, when it's only 1 LoW choice, it's usually a Primarch, and then he is rolling in a Spartan with his bodyguard (usually Special Terminators)- easily 1,000 points in that basket. They crush anything else on the table except another Primarch Death Star. The other 2,000-2,500 points is almost immaterial as nothing else can really do anything against that Death Star. A lot depends on which Legions are fighting, what the scenario is, etc. etc. I did watch an entertaining game once where a player destroyed the Spartan that had the Death Star, and then his Falchion killed the rest of the Death Star. Lots of lucky rolls there, but entertaining to watch.

If you are removing more models in each phase of the game, then the game will speed up. No templates means the game right there will speed up. Break tests are great for removing even more models from a unit. Consider- you lose some models due to shooting, then you take your break test: You could lose even more models. While we won't see lucky shots popping a Land Riader on turn 1, we won't see the invincible Land Raider that lasts the entire game either. If the game plays at all like Age of Sigmar, there will be a tipping point, usually around turn 3-4, where one side will have a distinct advantage, and it will be very, very difficult for the other side to come back from that kind of deficit. Again, this depends on the scenario. I had one model left on the table while playing vs. a shooty army, but it was a Hero, and he was standing next to an objective, and so I won the game because I had more victory points then my opponent (you score VP's for each Hero next to an objective, and at the end of the game, even if you table your opponent, the army with the most VP's wins). I expect similar mechanics in 8th edition, where only certain units will be able to score objectives (none of this "Objective Secured" crap), and it will be defined by the Scenario, not the army selection or Formation.

We don't know the granularity of the points yet in 8th edition. This of course, will have a large effect on how many models will be on the table. It's safe to say that high points means more models meaning longer games. GW will have designed an "ideal game" though of so many models on the table, and that it should take this much time to play. We just don't know what that is yet.

Deadlier weapons, the removal of more models during shooting and combat, and the loss of more models during the Break Test, no more template weapons, and (hopefully) less rules to remember/look up will make for faster games.

My experience of 40k, 30k, and AoS suggests that it's less about the number of models and more about the number of units/entities/decisions to be made. The difference in play time between figuring out what to do with five guys with boltguns and twenty guys with boltguns is negligible, MSU and the number of different weapons in the unit make for the slowdown much more so than more models do.

My 2,000pt AoS lists (and 2,000pt 30k lists, for that matter) have about as many different steps/decisions to make in a turn as my 1,000pt 40k lists. They may have more models, but they don't have more units, more psychic shenanigans, or more target priority decisions.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Chainswords will be a thing. Imagine this: 20 Space Marine Legion Tactical Squad with Bolters and Fury of the Legion. Then, they get to charge into close combat with chainswords. Yes, I know, currently you can't move or assault the turn you use Fury of The Legion. Do you really think they are going to keep those restrictions on it into 8th? Imagine- 40 Bolters shots at 12", and then at least two attacks each when they get into close combat with chainswords, and those that are not in melee range can fire bolt pistols instead. Brutal.

I think you just quoted why they probably WILL keep it...What changed in 8th that makes you think they would remove that intentional drawback?

Twin Linked Autocannons will be the best weapons in the game. Guess my insane 10 model Devastator Squad with Autocannons wasn't such a bad idea after all. The Sicarian Battle Tank just might reclaim its title as "Best Tank in the Game". The Deredo... that will be one scary, and deadly dreadnought.

Then again it won't do much of a dent in heavier tanks. Against dread assumign d3 for autocannon about 4 wounds for 10 autocannon heavy support squad.

Heavy Bolters will suddenly be viable! To get the most bang for the buck you are going to want many of them. Unfortunately, currently only vehicles have access to heavy bolters. We might actually see dreads with heavy bolters, but I have a feeling that heavy bolters will still be over shadowed by autocannons and assault cannons.

The -1 save modifier really all it took for HB to be worth it?

Invulnerable saves will work against wounds and mortal wounds.

Mortal punches through invulnerables.

This does not mean that there isn't a place for a Lascannon that has strength 9, rend -3 and d3 damage.

d6 damage.

Seems my squadron of jetbikes got role reversal at least when equipped with multi-meltas before they even got painted! With 8th ed doesn't look like multi-melta really wants to get close like before. With melta bonus being 2d6 pick highest for damage that equals in average just 1 extra point of damage per wounding hit. Do you really want to get that close for that? If you are that close you are almost certainly dead next turn. Looks like MM jetbikes will be more of skirting flanks trying to keep ~20" distance from enemy binking enemy armour with that S8 AP-4 dam: d6 shots. Against T7 and less BETTER than lascannon. Albeit many vehicles seems to be on T8 so that's bummer but ability to move fast isn't bad. And they do have that suicide average 4.5 damage output option available if you really feel it's worth it.

That and if opponent leaves unprotected direction toward character go and snipe it from that direction if you can get that to be closest enemy. Though probably also suicide mission.

But for example against T8 3+ save target like dreadnought 3 multi-melta get in average 1 through saves. At long range thus d6, short 2d6 pick highest. 3.5 vs 4.5. Often not as big difference as before where against even AV13 damaging from long range was tough while at melta range became easy. Now wounding is same and short range just bumps damage by 1 point up.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The Custodes are going to have a field day, if all their twin-linked guns just get double the shots. Jetbikes with 2d3 lascannon shots, two massive-strength exoshock shots or six lower-strength shots out of the Arachnus blaze cannons on the Pallas and the Coronus, two Adrathic Destructor shots from each Terminator (or four from the Contemptor-Achillus)....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tamwulf wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The game already plays fast. We on average play 3k-3.5k games, and they take just as long, if not less time then an 1850 40K game.

Are you referring to 30K games vs. 40K games?

Just as a comparison with Age of Sigmar: A 2,000 point game of AoS, which has around the same number of models as an 1850 point game of 40K, plays in about an hour and a half, if that. Most of my games are over in one hour at that level. Usually much faster as I don't have any shooting or magic in my army. So all I do is the Command Phase, Move Phase, and Fight Phase.

My experience has been that the larger the 30K game, the longer it takes. If you could take more Lords of War choices, the game can go very quickly. However, when it's only 1 LoW choice, it's usually a Primarch, and then he is rolling in a Spartan with his bodyguard (usually Special Terminators)- easily 1,000 points in that basket. They crush anything else on the table except another Primarch Death Star. The other 2,000-2,500 points is almost immaterial as nothing else can really do anything against that Death Star. A lot depends on which Legions are fighting, what the scenario is, etc. etc. I did watch an entertaining game once where a player destroyed the Spartan that had the Death Star, and then his Falchion killed the rest of the Death Star. Lots of lucky rolls there, but entertaining to watch.

If you are removing more models in each phase of the game, then the game will speed up. No templates means the game right there will speed up. Break tests are great for removing even more models from a unit. Consider- you lose some models due to shooting, then you take your break test: You could lose even more models. While we won't see lucky shots popping a Land Riader on turn 1, we won't see the invincible Land Raider that lasts the entire game either. If the game plays at all like Age of Sigmar, there will be a tipping point, usually around turn 3-4, where one side will have a distinct advantage, and it will be very, very difficult for the other side to come back from that kind of deficit. Again, this depends on the scenario. I had one model left on the table while playing vs. a shooty army, but it was a Hero, and he was standing next to an objective, and so I won the game because I had more victory points then my opponent (you score VP's for each Hero next to an objective, and at the end of the game, even if you table your opponent, the army with the most VP's wins). I expect similar mechanics in 8th edition, where only certain units will be able to score objectives (none of this "Objective Secured" crap), and it will be defined by the Scenario, not the army selection or Formation.

We don't know the granularity of the points yet in 8th edition. This of course, will have a large effect on how many models will be on the table. It's safe to say that high points means more models meaning longer games. GW will have designed an "ideal game" though of so many models on the table, and that it should take this much time to play. We just don't know what that is yet.

Deadlier weapons, the removal of more models during shooting and combat, and the loss of more models during the Break Test, no more template weapons, and (hopefully) less rules to remember/look up will make for faster games.

My experience of 40k, 30k, and AoS suggests that it's less about the number of models and more about the number of units/entities/decisions to be made. The difference in play time between figuring out what to do with five guys with boltguns and twenty guys with boltguns is negligible, MSU and the number of different weapons in the unit make for the slowdown much more so than more models do.

My 2,000pt AoS lists (and 2,000pt 30k lists, for that matter) have about as many different steps/decisions to make in a turn as my 1,000pt 40k lists. They may have more models, but they don't have more units, more psychic shenanigans, or more target priority decisions.

Exactly. My 40K Eldar army at 1850 had 12 different units, a very long psychic phase, and a complex movement phase. Shooting involved high numbers of dice, and with constant movement in the assault phase as well. 3 hour games were typical. In contrast, I did a 30K tournament yesterday, with escalation rounds, from 1500 to 2500 points. The longest game took 2 hours.

It does seem that the complexity of the army adds considerably to the length of time it takes to play. It's one of the reasons I really like 30K! In general, you see a squad, and everything in that squad has the same weapons. When GW added the psychic phase... that just tacked on more time to play a game. I pretty much lose all interest in a game after about 1 1/2 hours. It's even worse if say, I have no psychics, but my opponent does, so I sit around waiting for him to finish his psychic phase before moving on. It's bad enough during the movement phase with large armies. "Hey bud! I'm gonna run across the street and grab a sandwich. Want anything? OK. Be right back," I'll go grab a sandwich, come back, and he'll still be moving units! Bleh!

Fury of the Legion will change. How it changes is anyone's guess. When multiple squads in a transport can jump out, shoot, and assault all in the same phase, and their transport assault with them (!!!), I can't see an ability that doubles the shots for one kind of unit for specific weapons at the cost of movement and charging making it into 8th edition without changes.

tneva82, did you miss the part where a 6 always wounds (a S1 shot vs. T10 will wound on a 6+), and a save of 1 always fails? That's how GW can get away with saying "A lasgun can blow up a Land Raider!". Remember, you make saves vs. hits, not wounds. If you are hit with a weapon that does d6 wounds, you make one save, and if you fail, you take d6 wounds. In Age of Sigmar, this is mitigated by some units, artifacts, command abilities, and spells giving you a second save vs. wounds, not hits. I have a feeling that's how invulnerable saves will work- you'll get a save vs. wounds.

The heavy bolter will be viable because it can hurt anything at worst on a 5+, has a 36" range, and shoots 3 times. You'll be able to move and still shoot it at a -1 BS. It's currently one of the cheapest heavy weapons in the game. Again, the Rend value is immaterial, because a 1 always fails a save. That's why I'm saying number of shots is the #1 characteristic of a weapon. Shooting a heavy bolter at a Space Marine will wound on a 3+, and the rend means the Space Marine saves on a 4+. So 66% chance to wound, and 50% chance to kill, vs. 66% wound and 33% chance to kill in 7th edition. That humble heavy bolter just moved up in it's usefulness. It's still going to be over shadowed by the assault cannon (basic assumption that it's still going to be S6, 4 shots, and a high rend value), but it's also going to cost way more than a heavy bolter. I kinda wish I had made my Sicarian Battle Tank with the heavy bolter sponsons now.

I don't remember reading anywhere that mortal wounds ignores invulnerable saves. If it does, what's the point of an invulnerable save? Invulnerable saves will probably allow you to make a save vs. wounds, so you'll get your regular save first, and if you fail, then your invulnerable save vs. the wound(s). That's basically how it works in Age of Sigmar. And in AoS, mortal wounds ignore all saves, except those saves that allow you to ignore mortal wounds. Feel no pain will probably be like a third save- if you fail your save, and your invulnerable save, then you can take your FnP. Or if you take a mortal wound. Make your FnP save.

You won't be able to snipe a character. There is still "Look out, Sir!" and it's automatic in 8th. The example they gave was Roboute Guiliman walking behind a squad of marines. He basically gets to slough off wounds onto the squad if he isn't the closest model (and because he is a character). You won't be able to even target the character unless you have a special rule that allows it or if he isn't the closest model. Incidentally, Sniper Weapons will hopefully get the ability to pick out targets and ignore that rule. It's been alluded to, but not confirmed. The use of heavy weapons and target selection is even more important now because there is no "wound pool". Shooting a multimelta at a single wound model means you just wasted all those extra wounds. While a character can't join a squad, there is nothing saying a character can't walk in the middle of a unit (if you think bubble wrap was bad in 7th...).

There will definitely be a place for a fast out flanking unit that can hit really hard. Though I'd say Jetbikes with heavy bolters will probably be more useful- give you more utility. Your anti-armor might suffer, but you won't feel like you are wasting shots when you shoot at single wound models. Custodes Jetbikes... wow. They will be a terror on the battlefield! Even if three Jetbikes with multimelta's perform a suicide run on a high value target... it'll probably be worth it. I'd gladly sacrifice those three Jetbikes if it meant a side or rear shot on a Spartan blowing it up before it could get across the board to deliver it's cargo of nastiness- but that's 7th edition. Without all the rules and unit stats... it's hard to say if that will still be a viable tactic going forward.

 Tamwulf wrote:
tneva82, did you miss the part where a 6 always wounds (a S1 shot vs. T10 will wound on a 6+), and a save of 1 always fails? That's how GW can get away with saying "A lasgun can blow up a Land Raider!". Remember, you make saves vs. hits, not wounds. If you are hit with a weapon that does d6 wounds, you make one save, and if you fail, you take d6 wounds. In Age of Sigmar, this is mitigated by some units, artifacts, command abilities, and spells giving you a second save vs. wounds, not hits. I have a feeling that's how invulnerable saves will work- you'll get a save vs. wounds.

Regarding HB? Yes you can hurt everything on 6 but so can autocannon(that will likely have d3 damage). Against tanks you still want bigger gun than 3 shots at S5, -1ASM and d1.

Heavy bolter won't be used against tanks except on desperate situation.

Invulnerable save simply gives you save below which it cannot get. You have 5+ invulnerable save no matter how big AP enemy gun is you save on 5+. It isn't additional save and mortal wound ignores invulnerable save.

The heavy bolter will be viable because it can hurt anything at worst on a 5+, has a 36" range, and shoots 3 times.

6+ against T10+ actually. And other things it already had.

You'll be able to move and still shoot it at a -1 BS. It's currently one of the cheapest heavy weapons in the game. Again, the Rend value is immaterial, because a 1 always fails a save.

Eeeh that -1 is biggest thing heavy bolter gained in this edition...It's actually pretty big as against space marines that alone DOUBLES it's efficiency.

That's why I'm saying number of shots is the #1 characteristic of a weapon. Shooting a heavy bolter at a Space Marine will wound on a 3+, and the rend means the Space Marine saves on a 4+. So 66% chance to wound, and 50% chance to kill, vs. 66% wound and 33% chance to kill in 7th edition.

Funny you first say rend value is immaterial and then give example that shows how it's usefull while other factors aren't even introduced.

I don't remember reading anywhere that mortal wounds ignores invulnerable saves. If it does, what's the point of an invulnerable save?

GW has said so. And what's the point? You forgot there's these things called lascannon(-3) and meltas(-4)? You want some sort of save against those.

There's handy thread on news&rumour that has all the information we know so far including this available. Helpful if you read the first post that has EVERYTHING.

Invulnerable saves will probably allow you to make a save vs. wounds,

Why talk "probably" when we already know how it works?

You won't be able to snipe a character. There is still "Look out, Sir!" and it's automatic in 8th. The example they gave was Roboute Guiliman walking behind a squad of marines. He basically gets to slough off wounds onto the squad if he isn't the closest model (and because he is a character). You won't be able to even target the character unless you have a special rule that allows it or if he isn't the closest model.

Bolded is the key. You know that the jetbikes are fast? As in probably in realm of 12-16" in 8th ed. That allows to go around. So unless opponent weakens his units efficiency by doing hallow circle I can get around. So mere presence allows me to dictate movement of enemy. And with casualties opportunities open up.

Incidentally, Sniper Weapons will hopefully get the ability to pick out targets and ignore that rule. It's been alluded to, but not confirmed.

Eeeh it's been confirmed long time ago...We also already know stats of tau sniper drones.

While a character can't join a squad, there is nothing saying a character can't walk in the middle of a unit (if you think bubble wrap was bad in 7th...).

Of course moving that unit isn't going to be easy as you can't move over models and of course that means he's in non-optimal formation to ensure no sniping.

Seriously how much you have read of 8th ed? You seem to have missed a lot of stuff that's already long time confirmed.

tneva82 wrote:
Seriously how much you have read of 8th ed? You seem to have missed a lot of stuff that's already long time confirmed.

Obviously I haven't read enough to satisfy you!

You are approaching this thread "30K weapons in 8th Edition - The Big Winners" as fact, from little snippets of information. I took it as opinion, using my own opinion to answer the question. No, I haven't read all the rumors about 8th- why should I? Teases, incomplete information meant to generate interest, and marketing campaign BS. It's like looking through a little key hole at a huge painting- we don't see the entire picture. If you critically read any of those posts from GW, you'll realize exactly what I'm saying: They are trying to create a buzz for the new edition, not import any meaningful information to the player base.

Reading over all the comments in this section, you really haven't offered an opinion or answered the question at all. All you've done is tear apart my posts. It's all too easy to point out the faults and mistakes in someone's post without offering anything in return. You are like that kid in the back of the room that thinks he is smarter then everyone else because all he does is correct everyone else.

So please! With everything you know about 8th edition so far, what weapons do you think will be the biggest winners?

 Tamwulf wrote:
You are approaching this thread "30K weapons in 8th Edition - The Big Winners" as fact, from little snippets of information. I took it as opinion, using my own opinion to answer the question. No, I haven't read all the rumors about 8th- why should I? Teases, incomplete information meant to generate interest, and marketing campaign BS. It's like looking through a little key hole at a huge painting- we don't see the entire picture. If you critically read any of those posts from GW, you'll realize exactly what I'm saying: They are trying to create a buzz for the new edition, not import any meaningful information to the player base.

Problem being you are making assumptions that are based on totally incorrect information which were also easily found(you can find them all by reading periodically one message on this board).

It's kinda pointless to speculate what might be biggest winner or loser if you then flat out deliberately ignore what we do know about it.

tneva82 wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
You are approaching this thread "30K weapons in 8th Edition - The Big Winners" as fact, from little snippets of information. I took it as opinion, using my own opinion to answer the question. No, I haven't read all the rumors about 8th- why should I? Teases, incomplete information meant to generate interest, and marketing campaign BS. It's like looking through a little key hole at a huge painting- we don't see the entire picture. If you critically read any of those posts from GW, you'll realize exactly what I'm saying: They are trying to create a buzz for the new edition, not import any meaningful information to the player base.

Problem being you are making assumptions that are based on totally incorrect information which were also easily found(you can find them all by reading periodically one message on this board).

It's kinda pointless to speculate what might be biggest winner or loser if you then flat out deliberately ignore what we do know about it.

Very good then! Why didn't you say that it's pointless speculation in your first thread instead of pointing out how wrong everyone is?