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.

Youn wrote:
So, am I reading this correctly in that a Stormraven that is shot at by supercharged plasma kills the shooter on a roll of 1 or 2?

Yep. Ditto Stealth Suits for the Tau.

I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.

Just think, a vehicle with a Heavy plasma weapon that moves and shoots something with a -1 to hit suffers a wound on half its shots.

skarsol wrote:
Anything that applies a negative modifier to hit makes plasma more dangerous.

Which is highlighting a problem brought up in miniwargamings 8th ed review. Paraphrasing: "gw can't decide whether units that are harder to hit for whatever reason (speed/stealth/invisible) should get a modifier or an inv save. "

They keyword system is part of the problem IMO and its really messing with my immersion. It's so far the other way on abstraction, its often a missed opportunity too. The ghostkeel having that fly keyword is going to come back to haunt it with traditionally AA style weaponry



In marketing you hear the word bespoke a lot. It just means made to order. Your delicious mcdonalds cheeseburger is also bespoke. The problem with bespoke to me is they think they're saying tailor made and I'm hearing whipped up on the spot.

The keyword system works really well in AoS and I don't expect anything less in 40k. I think hard-to-hit units should generally be given hit penalties to strike them unless it represents an active 'dodge' sort of ability where an invul is appropriate (see Genestealers). But that such hard-to-hit-ness translates into plasma weapons overheating more often is silly and more importantly not how plasma weapons are supposed to work.

xerxeshavelock wrote:

Youn wrote:
So, am I reading this correctly in that a Stormraven that is shot at by supercharged plasma kills the shooter on a roll of 1 or 2?

Yep. Ditto Stealth Suits for the Tau.

Yup, this is the no nuance edition.

The gunner is focusing more on hitting an elusive target and less on the safety and stability of the weapon. I can see it.

I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.

For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.

Davor wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.

For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.

For once, Davor and I agree.
I'm going to go have a few drinks now...

Davor wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.

For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.

I'll be buying/playing 40k now when I wasn't previously doing so at all.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.

For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.

I'll be buying/playing 40k now when I wasn't previously doing so at all.

all of this, seriously. i hadn't bought anythign 40k in months and hadn't played a game in longer.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.

For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.

I'll be buying/playing 40k now when I wasn't previously doing so at all.

Same here. Sat out 6th and 7th and 8th edition WFB.
AoS and 8th 40k (and the cool board games they've done over the past couple years) brought me back to playing GW stuff.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.

It does have the benefit of forcing players to diversify their armory to tackle different units. I don't want to see Over-Charged Plasma become the new Grav.

I know it's a fantasy.

I'm excited about a lot of things I've seen about 8th. I still have not received my pre-order from TheWarstore.. probably should've just gone with Frontline.. especially since they're local..
Anyway.. GW is saying and doing the right things.. the things that made it easier to love their products instead of reasons to hate their brand/company.. 8th appears to be similar enough to both older editions and some specialist games while being mindful of newer tendencies in the gaming-verse.

I had not bought any new GW products in a long time. I had bought Mordheim and other OOP stuff.. but the direction they had been going was clearly not aimed at me. The decisions of the 'Ard Boyz era up until the change of leadership were all moves away from what I was looking for..

The interesting thing.. having been away so long, looking through the catalog NOW.. of all the shiny toys that have been released while I've been away.. and not feeling weirdly obligated to hate all of them.. It's actually kinda exciting.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.

Despite the 'cheapness of life' view in some of the 40k factions, I still can't see why any military would make a gun that destroys itself and it's user a sixth of the times it's shot.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.

Despite the 'cheapness of life' view in some of the 40k factions, I still can't see why any military would make a gun that destroys itself and it's user a sixth of the times it's shot.

It used to. Now it is only dangerous when you deliberately overcharge it beyond safe limits.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because he will respond negatively to any development...

Which, as I've said on multiple occasions, is total and utter horse gak.

So, again, cut it the feth out.

Neronoxx wrote:

Would you rather play 7th or 8th? .

Why would those be the only two options?


The road they chose to go down with 8th isn't the only way they could have chosen to fix the game.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.

Despite the 'cheapness of life' view in some of the 40k factions, I still can't see why any military would make a gun that destroys itself and it's user a sixth of the times it's shot.

Rules are not fluff and fluff does not make for good rules. GW has proven this well enough, it's time to let go of the assumption that every detail of a rule needs a justification in fluff.

In this case, the fluff says that it's dangerous to overload your plasma weapon because it might overheat and fry you.
The rules have it explode on a roll of 1 on a d6 because it is impractical to bring a d32 and a d48 along to mimic the exact 3.125% chance of plasma guns exploding and the 2.0833% chance of vehicle mounted a plasma cannon exploding.

Also rolling for rules that have a large chance of doing nothing over the course of an entire game is a major waste of time.

I agree that it is un-intuitive that negative modifiers increase the chance of overheating, however everybody seems to be fine with positive modifiers preventing overheating.
In the end, it's just a rule. All you need to remember is that the '1' for flaming plasma self-incineration is checked after modifiers and you're fine, no matter how many positive or negative modifiers you have.
The only issue I see is that, from a balancing point of view, it might be unwanted to make some models more resilient to plasma overloads than other. Or maybe this is fully intended to prevent plasma from dominating the game as it is currently heralded.

T hey should have just made the rll for plasma overheats separate from the roll to hit. That way it wouldnt be susceptible to all kinds of shenanigans that shouldnt be affecting it

Yeah, maybe they can come up with a better rule for plasma and that would fix a lot of the weirdness. In any case, at least now it's a choice whether or not to overcharge it, so you can just choose not to and then it's not an issue. I suppose it does make some kind of sense that in situations that make it harder to hit (you are moving and firing a heavy weapon for example) you have less concentration available to try to overload your weapon just enough to not have it blow up on you.

If you were to change the rules to only natural 1s causing your plasma gun to explode, would you include a rule that applied the boom before Rerolls or would you want those to still save you?

 AduroT wrote:
If you were to change the rules to only natural 1s causing your plasma gun to explode, would you include a rule that applied the boom before Rerolls or would you want those to still save you?

We will probably just make it so the re-rolls save you. If you got the Armor Save I would have to say no.

 AduroT wrote:
If you were to change the rules to only natural 1s causing your plasma gun to explode, would you include a rule that applied the boom before Rerolls or would you want those to still save you?

After re-rolls, for consistency. As in, a re-roll completely ignores the first result, always applies the second result.

Writing in the weapon profile "On an unmodified roll of 1 (after re-rolls)..." could make all these little problems go away, remove ambiguity and isn't something for which a GW writer needs to stay in late on Friday night.

I would just do shots and re rolls as normal, then after the oc plasma has been shot roll a dice to see if it overheats separately. That way the rerolls for precision shots from having a catain or whoevs nearby will affect the units shooting ability, but not the plasma overheating potnetial. It means you can hit or miss and it can still explode as well

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
The gunner is focusing more on hitting an elusive target and less on the safety and stability of the weapon. I can see it.

This, right here, makes perfect sense, and it's probably what the developers had in mind to justify it.

FWIW I meant in a rule context; I don't think the explosion chances are supposed to vary that much on the tabletop. Fluff is another issue and one I'm not really bothered by; there are far greater nonsensical issues we must deal with than that. Sometimes good rules design means having areas that don't make perfect sense fluff wise in order to have the game function better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

Would you rather play 7th or 8th? .

Why would those be the only two options?


The road they chose to go down with 8th isn't the only way they could have chosen to fix the game.

And any of those other options would have had a significant group of people complaining about how bad it was. There is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would please everyone, and they are in the decidedly unenviable position of having to try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because he will respond negatively to any development...

Which, as I've said on multiple occasions, is total and utter horse gak.

So, again, cut it the feth out.

Well I suppose my opinion differs from yours then.

GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING!

The topic here is "8th Edition Rules and FAQ posted".

The topic here is NOT other's users opinions, history or posting habits.

THAT would be against RULE #2 AND RULE #1...

insaniak wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

Would you rather play 7th or 8th? .

Why would those be the only two options?


The road they chose to go down with 8th isn't the only way they could have chosen to fix the game.

That's why I went back to 3rd, and I have no issues getting games nowadays.