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.

New community site post on the three ways to play: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/

Doesn't really contain much information. There will be a Meatgrinder mission in the narrative play section. Armies have "strategems", "more on those soon".

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.

No, but pour enough shots into it and eventually it might hit an exposed part or weaken an area enough to cause damage. Since Terminators are said to have armour like a tank should they also be completely immune to small-arms fire?

First of all armor like a tank is too broad of a term to have an argument about, especially considering the diversity of vehicles in 40k. Second, terminator armor being body armor is inevitably going to have weaker parts like visors or joints. It's juat that they are extremely hard to land s shot on.
An undamaged LR doesn't have that. Having a LR being damaged by some anti-tank weapon means there is such a weapon on the field and even still the whole shoot the damaged part thing is really fishy. But that's not my point.
Realistically the only thing a lot of autoguns would be able to achieve against and undamaged LR is to maybe damage it's visors.

Well lets see if guardsmen poured enough fire to track the Raider, blind the vision blocks, knock out the unarmored guns, blow out the unarmored machine spirit, kill the tank commander and rip up the exhaust ports.....is not the Land Raider dead? The hull remains undamaged.

Guns are armored, save the pintle mounted storm bolter. Not to metion that heavy weaponry is typically pretty sturdy even withour armor, due to the fact that it has to withstand the power of it's own shots. Machine spirit is perfectly safe inside the tank's hull so is it's crew. Only the very top part of exhaust pipes is unarmored but damaging them would give no useful effect in battle at all.

That bark bark army... I didn't know just how far 40k had fallen. I had heard talk of these death star players driving away other gamers in some of the local stores, but I just never knew it was like that.

If they really did make this the most playtested version of 40k ever, then hopefully there's less of the supreme grand master of a space marine chapter hanging out with the attack dogs of a completely different chapter.

 frozenwastes wrote:
That bark bark army... I didn't know just how far 40k had fallen.

7E really became a total garbage pit following the 2015 Necron release. The power bloat and fluff violations driven by the rules are obscene.

The sooner 7E disappears the better.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
New community site post on the three ways to play: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/

From that link:

"Narrative play is just what it sounds like – fighting battles based on stories from the far future, whether from campaign books, Black Library novels or legends of your own creation. Perhaps they even form part of an ongoing campaign, or are set in the notorious war zones of the 41st Millennium, such as Armageddon, Cadia, Fenris, Baal… the list goes on. Playing games that tell part of a larger story is what narrative play is all about.

Suggestions for missions that can form the basis of open or narrative play games (including the return of the classic Warhammer 40,000 battle “Meatgrinder”), as well as suggestions on historical and campaign games are all available in the new edition."

This is really smart. Part of the problem with GW's games has always been that the way to play that falls the most flat (pitched battle with no scenario between even forces) falls extra flat when you aren't using a robust points and army construction system. And people who might really enjoy some actually well crafted scenario play more than that approach might not try it without a greater level of explanation as to how it's actually done. Like when Age of Sigmar launched and people didn't really know how to use the very limited amount of rules they were given.

I really dont like templates going, mostly because I bought a set of apoc templates not to long ago and have yet to use them and it just seems weird to roll for a random number of wounds making it weaker against hordes but stronger against single models (or perhaps the number of wounds can be modified but the number of models in the target unit). I guess if enough other things are fixed with a new edition I can get over it but and perhaps I could still use them in HH (not that I have assembled any HH models yet, but I have the 2 boxes, let alone somebody to play against but ah well )

Tyel wrote:
I just hope that someone in the head office gets interested in Orks again. Not at a fluff level - I mean at a technical play them all the time level.

Way back in 2nd I think Orks were the 2nd most popular army. This was probably due to being in the box and having a good range of plastic models when say Chaos was mostly expensive metal but still.

In White Dwarf it was Orks all the time. At some point though this went away. Since late 4th they have been in deep freeze. I guess they are not unique in this (Tyranids had a similar wave of obsession followed by disavowal) but still.

It also helped that Adrian Wood and Andy Chambers were also crazy about all things green, as at that time the design studio and WD were a lot closer connected (I.e. at the hip)

 Lockark wrote:

I don't believe they said anything about faction specif FoC's, They said Faction specif Command Point abilities, with 14 FoC's to choose from for everyone. The only rules attached to FoC's is the number of Command Points you get, so I can't see a need for faction specif FoC's anyway.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot of sense.

Now it's beginning to sound like, instead of pricing formations as in AoS, they're taking a different route: each army gets special abilities from its Command Points, and the larger/more thematic your army is, the more often you can use them. But they're still an expendable resource that you have to manage.

I wasn't 100% sold initially, but that is sounding like a very engaging way to deal with the problem.

 warboss wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

Guess that's American credit card culture at work then - over here everyone uses a debit card (not credit), no one uses cash and 90% of customers would have a bank statement even if they didn't keep the receipt.

Your bank statements itemize each purchase so that you can see exactly what was bought in a multiple item purchase? That is impressive and far beyond what is available in the US. Over here, bank statements just list the grand total of a purchase and if you heaven forbid bought more than one item then the price won't be correct. Heck, even if your GW codex was bought as a single purchase, our statements here don't differentiate between a $50 GW codex or a $50 Bolt Action rulebook.. they show up the same as a generic $50 purchase that GW would be bonkers to accept on empty faith.

Not really, but if you have the transaction date and the card it was billed to from the bank statement, stores have receipt DBs that have that information.

In the case of GW I'm 100% certain that's the case, because I've worked with their program back when I was a redshirt.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
That bark bark army... I didn't know just how far 40k had fallen.

7E really became a total garbage pit following the 2015 Necron release. The power bloat and fluff violations driven by the rules are obscene.

The sooner 7E disappears the better.

I knew they wanted to increase allies and introduced the unbound approach so they could sell everyone as much of a given new release as possible, but I wonder if they saw this coming.

Hopefully keywords will disallow it. If all the ability's like Azrael's are Dark Angel keyworded then no more bark bark deathstar, even inside a Gland Alliance: Imperium type army.

The wound profile will matter more than whether lasguns can harm the. If hypothetically all Vehicles have 10 wounds, then a Land Raider would probably expect to remain at full efficiency until it had 2 wounds less, whereas a Rhino might get its movement reduced at 5 or 6 wounds. Let's also assume a Raider is a 2+ save whereas a Rhino is a 4+, and Lasguns are 4+/4+ to hit and wound.

Now obviously you can argue about the fluff until the cows come hope but Lasguns getting a Land Raider to one wound would take a long, improbable and pointless amount of time. Even if they took it from my hypothetical 3 wounds to 2 wounds, affecting its capabilities, it would be:

1. very difficult!
and
2. more likely that a big weapon had taken most of those wounds away first.

This is all hypoethetical of course, but it is how the current Sky Dwarf Battleships work. Terrible saves, HUGE wound count, and almost 100% effectiveness until they take 90% of their wounds. I imagine 40k will have better profiles for armoured units than AoS, but I think its a logical starting place. Heck, they could even put a rule on the Land Raider's unit profile that means weapons with an AP (or rend) value of less than -2 can't hurt the tank.

Worrying about this without seeing the rules is pointless, it's simple to think of ways they have made it so that a heroic guardsmen can get that 1 in a million shot off like they do in the narrative without meaning your tanks are now tissue paper.

This is of course pointless optimism,and I am assuming a bunch but going into a new system in an optimistic fashion is better than assuming its a bust. Simply put, your Land Raiders will be fine and if 100 guardsmen kill it then your opponent has probably spent 2 turns shooting at your Land Raider whilst the rest of your army remains unharmed.

MoD_Legion wrote:
it just seems weird to roll for a random number of wounds making it weaker against hordes but stronger against single models (or perhaps the number of wounds can be modified but the number of models in the target unit).

That's usually how it works in AoS. Different types of weapons that were formerly covered under "template" can now act differently thanks to warscroll rules.

So a mortar might do D3 damage, increasing to D6 and then 2D6 depending on the number of models in the target unit. A cannon would be a fixed damage score but would have a good rending value. A repeater bolt thrower just has a ludicrous number of attacks.

I could see a lascannon having a good rend and, say, D3 damage, increasing to D6 vs. a unit with the keyword VEHICLE or MONSTER.

Did anybody else catch that at 55:20 when the question is asked about the new map and it's lack of the madusa sector if that means it's beeing destroyed they say not to worry the "white scars " are fine. . . Isent that the home system of the iron hands ? It was last time I checked . They really need to learn there own lore before they go foward writing new lore.

 joseph_curwen wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:


It's probably not likely to be viable though and that isolated. The real question is whether you take those guardsmen now and aim at the LR with only one wound left (and how many) or the Marines that are 'softer'.

And this, right here, is why it sounds like the game might actually be fun, again, for anyone not fielding MEQs.

What did that was when they changed the armour rules back in 4th(?) and got rid of armour modifiers. Because of the popularity of marines that instantly made anything that beat AS 3+ valuable and that began a race to both 3+ AS and weapons that could beat them. Probably one of the worst design decisions I've seen was remove the armour save modifier.

Hopefully it will be. I'm just wary that dice rolling becomes too much of a factor and that, although balanced, victory comes down to who managed the best dice rolls (for example those 50 guardsmen could still defeat a landraider in one round if they are lucky) and because of that it scuppers your opponent to being helpless. Not that 40k doesn't need changing though...

 Azazelx wrote:
Have you ever seen the design of a Land Raider (or a Leman Russ, since both are "LR"? Exposed tracks, shot traps galore, camera lenses left and right. The Russ is even worse with the mesh door "protecting" the engine and often entirely exposed track links. It goes on and on...

It makes perfect sense that a high-powered lasgun shot or a bolter round could damage something as badly designed as a Land Raider or Russ.

Except no it doesn't. Questionable desigh decisions are a valid point if we are talking tank vs tank combat. Not insanely armoured in all places cube of death vs puny lasgun fire combat. Damaging land raider's cameras and smoke launchers is the best you can hope to achieve here.

 sinthes wrote:
Did anybody else catch that at 55:20 when the question is asked about the new map and it's lack of the madusa sector if that means it's beeing destroyed they say not to worry the "white scars " are fine. . . Isent that the home system of the iron hands ? It was last time I checked . They really need to learn there own lore before they go foward writing new lore.

IKR? Imagine using the wrong name for a thing while talking about something to another person in an offhand remark. Good thing that has never happened to anyone else, ever. fething scrubs the lot of them!

Plz don't bring realism into a discussion about a game that features nazi captain america's with 2 hearts flying cathedralspaceships through hell.

The energy needed for a single lasGUN shot to function as described can make cars fly like in back to the future.

There's a bunch of exposed cables hanging under the lascannons on the land raider. It should actually be really easy to disable the weapons with small arms fire. Or take out some of the cameras or sensors and make it impossible to effectively operate the thing, at least temporarily.

 Azazelx wrote:

 sinthes wrote:
Did anybody else catch that at 55:20 when the question is asked about the new map and it's lack of the madusa sector if that means it's beeing destroyed they say not to worry the "white scars " are fine. . . Isent that the home system of the iron hands ? It was last time I checked . They really need to learn there own lore before they go foward writing new lore.

IKR? Imagine using the wrong name for a thing while talking about something to another person in an offhand remark. Good thing that has never happened to anyone else, ever. fething scrubs the lot of them!

Well last time this happend they said the death guard were the 7th legion and had to remove a part of a trailer just to cover up their mistake. There are people like myself who don't really play the game but are more heavily invested and in love with the lore and setting.

Yeah, removing something from the game doesn't mean you blew it to bits (especially not if they completely remove the damage table as it currently is) just like how casualties don't necessarily mean deaths.

Not gonna lie.. if they bring back squats and influence it off of the AoS stuff that's coming out.. I might have to get in on that. Doesn't hurt that I have a bunch of Forgefathers but still..

Lasers are also a different type of weapon from our current different armour piercing shells. They impart energy. Thick armour can likely disperse the imparted energy of a lasgun quite easily, but a lascannon imparts so much more energy. So you just need to shoot enough lasguns to impart the same energy faster than it can be diffused by the armour. Odds are, it's a number higher than a platoon and if you look at possible ways they might handle (or have handled in some other game GW might make) hitting, wounding and armour save modifiers intersect with the defensive abilities of a tough target, I think it's going to be okay and we won't see a single squad of guardsmen melting a land raider.

Bolters have different shell types, so if you shoot them at a land raider with a unit, you can imagine the infantry have loaded acid rounds with a chemical designed specifically to compromise the material the tank is made out of. It's still not great at taking them out, but given enough fire, the armour and weak points can be overcome.

Earth127 wrote:

Plz don't bring realism into a discussion about a game that features nazi captain america's with 2 hearts flying cathedralspaceships through hell.

The energy needed for a single lasGUN shot to function as described can make cars fly like in back to the future.

The "realism" of terrible vehicle design, or the "realism" of "my toy needs to be invulnerable to your toy because it's a super tank"? Because, you know....

More from the twitter, core rules are only 12 pages

 sinthes wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 sinthes wrote:
Did anybody else catch that at 55:20 when the question is asked about the new map and it's lack of the madusa sector if that means it's beeing destroyed they say not to worry the "white scars " are fine. . . Isent that the home system of the iron hands ? It was last time I checked . They really need to learn there own lore before they go foward writing new lore.

IKR? Imagine using the wrong name for a thing while talking about something to another person in an offhand remark. Good thing that has never happened to anyone else, ever. fething scrubs the lot of them!

Well last time this happend they said the death guard were the 7th legion and had to remove a part of a trailer just to cover up their mistake. There are people like myself who don't really play the game but are more heavily invested and in love with the lore and setting.

My point is that feth ups happen. Some are small, some are larger. The 7th legion thing is embarrassing and should not happen. An incorrect name used in an offhand remark in relation to a question asked on the fly on a livestream is a different matter entirely.

I mean, 12 pages is scary, but not ridiculous. The majority of rules in the current rulebook are for things like unit types, USR's, etc. If all those rules are right there on the unit entries.. that's fine. A little worrisome, but i'm willing to wait and see.

 Latro_ wrote:
More from the twitter, core rules are only 12 pages

Still 3 times more than AoS'. I hope whoever mandated that "4 pages MAX" rule for AoS was fired.

 Azazelx wrote:

Earth127 wrote:

Plz don't bring realism into a discussion about a game that features nazi captain america's with 2 hearts flying cathedralspaceships through hell.

The energy needed for a single lasGUN shot to function as described can make cars fly like in back to the future.

The "realism" of terrible vehicle design, or the "realism" of "my toy needs to be invulnerable to your toy because it's a super tank"? Because, you know....

I'm on your side, but some people just can't see it.

Just like the trusty old Bolter. 30mm rocket propelled round. Probably one of the most common weapons in 40k, but they will argue that it could never take out a vehicle no matter how many times that vehicle is hit, or the location.

Your statement is the most accurate; It's not possible for your toy to kill my toy, because reasons.

The inverse would NEVER be true.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
New community site post on the three ways to play: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/

Doesn't really contain much information. There will be a Meatgrinder mission in the narrative play section. Armies have "strategems", "more on those soon".

Hmmm, eternal war and maelstrom still exist, but have been "updated a little." I'm hoping the reduced the randomness of maelstrom a bit. Winning just because you drew easy cards isn't very fun.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
Have you ever seen the design of a Land Raider (or a Leman Russ, since both are "LR"? Exposed tracks, shot traps galore, camera lenses left and right. The Russ is even worse with the mesh door "protecting" the engine and often entirely exposed track links. It goes on and on...

It makes perfect sense that a high-powered lasgun shot or a bolter round could damage something as badly designed as a Land Raider or Russ.

Except no it doesn't. Questionable desigh decisions are a valid point if we are talking tank vs tank combat. Not insanely armoured in all places cube of death vs puny lasgun fire combat. Damaging land raider's cameras and smoke launchers is the best you can hope to achieve here.

Which in turn would impact on crew visibility/accruacy meaning a person would have to stick there heads up to see which in turn makes a weak point and risks loseing crew degrading it even more so yes las's being able to damage a land raider (though probably raerly) does make sense.