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.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.

i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)

They said more than once that everything can hurt everything.

They did, but they didn't say 'When' everything can hurt everything.

What do you mean?

They said stats drop as big creatures and tanks take damage that could be when x can start to hurt y
In the same way every gun can hit everything on the board when its in range... your bolters might be able to finish off a rhino when its taken 4 wounds...

There could also be a special rule for Land Raiders and other such massive tanks "Heavily Armoured - Subtract 1 from the number of wounds dealt from every shot resolved against this model." So Lasguns with Damage 1 are negated, but even Heavy Bolters with Damage 2 can get through, and a close range Multimelta with Damage 6+d6 can almost ignore the rule.

 kodos wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mantle wrote:

Why are you seeing this change to flamers as bad?

templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon

but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start

Since when was measuring out 2" between all your models every turn "tactical"? It was a no-brainer move that did nothing but waste time. Every game started with "any templates?" followed by a sigh if your opponent said yes, time to bring out the 2" tool... Very happy to see templates go away.

if you never had to made the decision "should I place my whole squad inside terrain to get cover against those plasma guns or spread them out to have less models below his templates, or maybe I spread them out a little bit and spread the other unit less so that he waste his templates on them" or anything similar
your game must have been very boring

Play against anyone with a high model count?
I'm often playing Orks vs. Imperial Guard. Our games easily take an extra half-hour JUST for model spacing. It's not fun.

 kronk wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.

i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)

They said more than once that everything can hurt everything.

COULD is the operative word! It doesn't say how likely, though. I COULD have a date with Fiona Apple tomorrow just by emailing her!

Congratulations on the most random celebrity name drop I've seen in awhile.
Side note: She's pretty far from the spot light. Emailing her probably has decent odds, so she might not be the best metaphor.

 kodos wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mantle wrote:

Why are you seeing this change to flamers as bad?

templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon

but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start

Since when was measuring out 2" between all your models every turn "tactical"? It was a no-brainer move that did nothing but waste time. Every game started with "any templates?" followed by a sigh if your opponent said yes, time to bring out the 2" tool... Very happy to see templates go away.

if you never had to made the decision "should I place my whole squad inside terrain to get cover against those plasma guns or spread them out to have less models below his templates, or maybe I spread them out a little bit and spread the other unit less so that he waste his templates on them" or anything similar
your game must have been very boring

90% of the time the choice is obvious and what little tactics it adds doesn't come close to compensating for the drudgery of spacing your guys out every time you move them.

Voldrak wrote:
If we take a clue from Shadow War Armageddon, you can end up having to hit on more than a 6 roll.
I could very well see this translated to 40k wounds where you might need to wound with a 6 and then re-roll and get a 4+ on the second roll to wound in the first place.

this was a long time in 40k and fantasy before it got removed for being too complicated?
we also have (had?) the re-roll for BS >7

 kodos wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mantle wrote:

Why are you seeing this change to flamers as bad?

templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon

but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start

Since when was measuring out 2" between all your models every turn "tactical"? It was a no-brainer move that did nothing but waste time. Every game started with "any templates?" followed by a sigh if your opponent said yes, time to bring out the 2" tool... Very happy to see templates go away.

if you never had to made the decision "should I place my whole squad inside terrain to get cover against those plasma guns or spread them out to have less models below his templates, or maybe I spread them out a little bit and spread the other unit less so that he waste his templates on them" or anything similar
your game must have been very boring

Was that the only thing that kept your games from being boring?

 BrotherGecko wrote:
A while back I remember reading a report that said that an M1A1 Abrams got knocked out by small arms fire. Apparently rounds ricocheted into the turbines and caused a fire, knocking out the vehicle. It wasn't a total kill but small arms fire did manage a vehicle kill on a MBT. Rare sure but I bet a Guardsmen killing a Land Raider will happen 1 out of 1000 games.

There have been entire threads dedicated to 40k stories of the yumpastabowl that have defiled fluff conventions. I doubt vehicles not being immune to small arms in 40k is going to drastically change that.

A challenger 2 took a triple digit number of rpg hits and needed a new coat of paint your point is.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
I must be one of the rare individuals who keeps all of their receipts and really tight personal accounting books.

Also most modern businesses can email you a receipt from the register, no online ordering required. And nearly every single Point of Sale system can look up past transactions and reprint your receipt. If they can't then they are a gak run business and you should probably stop shopping there.

Does the offer apply to books you purchased from anywhere or just from GW directly?

I would assume direct.

Else a clever bugger goes, buys up a bunch of 7th ed codexes for cheap clearance from a FLGS or vendor and then cashes in credit.

Well I assumed they might offer the same to the discounters but only at the discounted rate, rather than full rate; otherwise yeah I'd be down every store buying lots up...

the_scotsman wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:


Haven't you heard? You can charge out of transports now! Time for that Mad Max-themed WAAAAGH! Boy list you always wanted. WITNESS ME!

Wych cults going to wreck yo face...and then wear it.

....all those models can already charge out of their transports?

TBH the only people that care about this are the armies that can now use rhinos, rather than land raiders, to charge out. Small disposable assault units might be a thing for imperial armies again.

Their transports that were inherently weaker being opened top with none of the benefits of other armies. Leveling the field means that obscure units - like Wyches - get to go do their intended purpose again....come screaming out of vehicles for murder-tastic times.

I just got this as a reply from Pete Foley via Twitter:

Hey! It's fixed to hit, opposed strength/toughness. #new40k

 Mymearan wrote:

90% of the time the choice is obvious and what little tactics it adds doesn't come close to compensating for the drudgery of spacing your guys out every time you move them.

for a game that is all about the right placing of your models in the movement phase of course remove the importance of such things make it easier
never had a problem with moving my models fast around and place them

and I don't think I really would enjoy a game were I just push a blob straight forward because it doesn't matter


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

Was that the only thing that kept your games from being boring?

no, why?
but the more player decision GW removed over time by just adding random effects or because the options were just gone, the bored they got
thats why I did not played much in 7th, too much random stuff combined with too less players effecting the game made it boring (it always was more playing against the game instead of playing against your opponent)

 kronk wrote:


Assume a blob squad of 50 guardsmen shooting at a Land Raider from within 12" with lasguns. Assume a Land Raider has 15 wounds and a 2+ save.

50 dudes = 100 shots
needing 4s to hit = 50 hits.
Needing 6's to glance = 8.33 wounds.
Needing 2's to save: 1.4 wounds.

You'll need 11 rounds to kill the land raider.

And in return I would suspect lascannons will do multiple wounds that scythe through Guard and he'll be removing most of a unit a turn.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I just got this as a reply from Pete Foley via Twitter:

Hey! It's fixed to hit, opposed strength/toughness. #new40k

Interesting.

Did we get an update on the cover to-hit modifiers they mentioned a while ago?

 davou wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time.

Yeah, they could potentially down a landraider in like 97 game turns! what an outrage. /s

Erm, no? I would understand such logic if 40k was using D20 and you had roll to 20 to wound a LR with something like a lasgun. But that is obviously not the case.
Besides, it doesn't matter. Even having a crapload of, say, cultist with autoguns shooting at a land raider should not in any way hurt a machine that is supposedly able to easily withstand anything but the most devastating weapons.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

 kronk wrote:


Assume a blob squad of 50 guardsmen shooting at a Land Raider from within 12" with lasguns. Assume a Land Raider has 15 wounds and a 2+ save.

50 dudes = 100 shots
needing 4s to hit = 50 hits.
Needing 6's to glance = 8.33 wounds.
Needing 2's to save: 1.4 wounds.

You'll need 11 rounds to kill the land raider.

And in return I would suspect lascannons will do multiple wounds that scythe through Guard and he'll be removing most of a unit a turn.

Considering they talked about a Knight with Battlecannon wrecking vehicles and monsters, but not clearing out hordes of infantry...

I don't think that will be the case.

Opposed strength/toughness suggest you will not be able to wound anything.

I suspect it will be like AoS. Fixed to hit, fixed to wound and then an armour save. Certain weapons will be more efficient versus tanks and MC because of things like rends and multiple wounds.

50 Guardsmen (rapid fire no longer exists) do one wound to a Land Raider if they hit on 5+, wound on 5+ and the LR gets a 2+ save. They only do two wounds if it has a 3+ save. If the LR then has 15-20 wounds it is a pretty inefficient way to chip some damage on it.

 kodos wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

90% of the time the choice is obvious and what little tactics it adds doesn't come close to compensating for the drudgery of spacing your guys out every time you move them.

for a game that is all about the right placing of your models in the movement phase of course remove the importance of such things make it easier
never had a problem with moving my models fast around and place them

and I don't think I really would enjoy a game were I just push a blob straight forward because it doesn't matter

Because that's the only other option - it's either meticulous unit spacing to account for templates, or shoving models haphazardly across the table. There is, literally, no other opportunity for tactics in movement.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I just got this as a reply from Pete Foley via Twitter:

Hey! It's fixed to hit, opposed strength/toughness. #new40k

So for shooting its the same as it's always been. Interesting if this is also for close combat - which is fine I suppose. I would have been disappointed with Strength/Toughness going away, but can stomach fixed To Hit for both shooting and CC.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

 kronk wrote:


Assume a blob squad of 50 guardsmen shooting at a Land Raider from within 12" with lasguns. Assume a Land Raider has 15 wounds and a 2+ save.

50 dudes = 100 shots
needing 4s to hit = 50 hits.
Needing 6's to glance = 8.33 wounds.
Needing 2's to save: 1.4 wounds.

You'll need 11 rounds to kill the land raider.

And in return I would suspect lascannons will do multiple wounds that scythe through Guard and he'll be removing most of a unit a turn.

I'm OK with that.

Tyel wrote:
Opposed strength/toughness suggest you will not be able to wound anything.

I suspect it will be like AoS. Fixed to hit, fixed to wound and then an armour save. Certain weapons will be more efficient versus tanks and MC because of things like rends and multiple wounds.

50 Guardsmen (rapid fire no longer exists) do one wound to a Land Raider if they hit on 5+, wound on 5+ and the LR gets a 2+ save. They only do two wounds if it has a 3+ save. If the LR then has 15-20 wounds it is a pretty inefficient way to chip some damage on it.

Opposed Strength / Toughness can still allow you to wound everything is they just change the "-" in the To Wound chart to "6"'s.

 deviantduck wrote:

 kronk wrote:


COULD is the operative word! It doesn't say how likely, though. I COULD have a date with Fiona Apple tomorrow just by emailing her!

Congratulations on the most random celebrity name drop I've seen in awhile.
Side note: She's pretty far from the spot light. Emailing her probably has decent odds, so she might not be the best metaphor.

So you're saying there's a chance!

 Whirlwind wrote:


Well I assumed they might offer the same to the discounters but only at the discounted rate, rather than full rate; otherwise yeah I'd be down every store buying lots up...

You would need to know the release date as well though.......

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:


I think we can count on the orks getting nerfed to oblivion, it will keep the theme of them going...

I wouldn't count on that.

The "Warzones" in the Galaxy section for the new website call out Armageddon as being a site where neither the Orks or Astra Militarum are "prepared for the escalation that the war is about to experience".
Same with the Arsonist of Charadon launching a Waagh! into Maccragge.

I play AoS with my son and like the system plus I really think that 40k needs a complete makeover and have been very optimistic about everything i heard so far... but... the latest news all points at a number of factions will get the brettonia treatment to make room for all the new power armour.

I am convinced that since orks have been useless for so long the lack of sales will make them one of the first xenos to be silently swept under the carpet.

And I was really looking forwrd to getting back into 40k again.

Tyel wrote:
Opposed strength/toughness suggest you will not be able to wound anything.

What? That's how it is now.

 kodos wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

90% of the time the choice is obvious and what little tactics it adds doesn't come close to compensating for the drudgery of spacing your guys out every time you move them.

for a game that is all about the right placing of your models in the movement phase of course remove the importance of such things make it easier
never had a problem with moving my models fast around and place them

and I don't think I really would enjoy a game were I just push a blob straight forward because it doesn't matter


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

Was that the only thing that kept your games from being boring?

no, why?
but the more player decision GW removed over time by just adding random effects or because the options were just gone, the bored they got
thats why I did not played much in 7th, too much random stuff combined with too less players effecting the game made it boring (it always was more playing against the game instead of playing against your opponent)

Movement is very important for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with templates and mean you certainly can't "push a blob straight forward".

Spacing of units
Covering other unit
Accounting for weapon range
Accounting for charges/close combat
Etc

All of which are a lot more interesting than making sure my little blue 2" measuring thingie doesn't touch more than one model at a time.

Kronky here is her Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/fionaapple/

You can just message her from there.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Opposed strength/toughness suggest you will not be able to wound anything.

What? That's how it is now.

Actually no, opposed S/T gave us stuff like S2 v T8 where you can't wound it.

The tagline so far is "anything can wound anything".

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Opposed Strength / Toughness can still allow you to wound everything is they just change the "-" in the To Wound chart to "6"'s.

True enough. I guess they could go that way.

 kodos wrote:

Voldrak wrote:
If we take a clue from Shadow War Armageddon, you can end up having to hit on more than a 6 roll.
I could very well see this translated to 40k wounds where you might need to wound with a 6 and then re-roll and get a 4+ on the second roll to wound in the first place.

this was a long time in 40k and fantasy before it got removed for being too complicated?
we also have (had?) the re-roll for BS >7

Shadow War is based upon Necromunda. The next 40k edition will have movement stats and maybe armor save modifiers but that similarity is coincidental. Don't look to Shadow War for hints about 40k.