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.

 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".

I loved the meatgrinder mission in 3rd. One player is making a "last stand" and the other gets to recycle destroyed units by bringing them back on a table edge, creating a Zulu style scene. It was great fun.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
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.

Kinda hints at USR's and unit types being chucked out inline with what they said about every unit having their rules on their profile!

this is proving to almost changes on a 2ed to 3rd scale!

ERJAK wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:
Couldn't be more excited for everything they said...and that's just the beginning. Looking forward to 40K becoming enjoyable and very prominent in my gaming areas again.

If it becomes as prominent in my area as it's father AoS I will never play again

If it becomes as prominent in my area as AoS I can play literally dusk to dawn any day of the week

muhahaha!
btw templates will become like a set amount of hits or in most cases, random. So for lack of a better comparison, in a AoS a former template now does for ex,. D3 or D6 hits, and such.

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.

quoting for truth. can't stress this enough. the Grim Darkness follows physics closely enough to tell a story and no closer. We wouldn't have these "realism" discussions about a comic book either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Latro_ wrote:

this is proving to almost changes on a 2ed to 3rd scale!

yes

 Latro_ wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
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.

Kinda hints at USR's and unit types being chucked out inline with what they said about every unit having their rules on their profile!

this is proving to almost changes on a 2ed to 3rd scale!

I'm actually a fan of USRs when they're done well. Unfortunately 40k in its current form doesn't use USRs in any kind of universal manner, preferring to add-on all manner of bespoke special rules and fractionally-different to the USR rules, and other endless bloat and bs. I'd rather see individual Datafaxes/Warscrolls/unit cards for everything and have them be self-contained than the current mess. 7th is the worst example of the use/application of USRs that I've ever seen in a game.

Damage to exterior equipment from small arms fire can make sense. Smoke launchers, cameras, aiming devices, sensor arrays, comms antennas, etc. That said, no amount of small arms fire is going to result in a heavy battle tank becoming immobilized or a wreck however, from a realism perspective at least.

I can live with this weirdness if tanks on the whole are properly balanced, not everything in the game needs to make perfect sense, just as a Leman Russ tank couldnt actually operate in real life with a breach that occupies the entirety of the hatch space

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 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.

They are armored laterally not frontally and have exposed optics and power cabling. Your next remark makes zero sense what so ever. A barrel and bolt housing only have to withstand the PSI generated by the firing of the round not its "power" whatever that means. The actual machine spirit by canon is the optic system located to the left of the heavy bolters and thus unarmored. The tank commander rides in the open and so will the driver if the vision blocks are impaired, most causalities on a tank is the tank commander from small arms fire. Damaging exhaust would cause significant issues to a tank plus the exhaust all includes most of the ridged back of the raider, which directly leads to the engine.

If the optics are damaged, or there is just enough smoke generated so that the crew can't see for a couple of minutes, that's the same as taking it out of action for the remainder of the game. It doesn't have to mean that a single lasgun show caused the thing to explode. Nor is it really going to happen in a game that a land raider is taken out entirely by lasgun fire. Though an already damaged tank might get taken out by lasgun fire, which is perfectly reasonable.

Skullhammer wrote:

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.

Land Raider has a minimum of six observation points be it cameras or periscopes. Which are also armored and are not easy to disable. Maybe if a platoon of guardsmen was shooting at an empty land raider point blanck fo a while than I could agree with that. But during a real battle - no, not gonna happen. Which is the whole point.

 Bottle wrote:

 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".

I loved the meatgrinder mission in 3rd. One player is making a "last stand" and the other gets to recycle destroyed units by bringing them back on a table edge, creating a Zulu style scene. It was great fun.

Yeah, me too. It was a really appropriate mission for my Tyranids, especially against a friend's Ultramarines. I'm pretty excited about the possibilities of GW releasing a lot of narrative missions, like they are doing with the Age of Sigmar battleplans.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 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.

Why? AoS is fine and dandy. The rules are on the unit cards. Its complexity is modular so that it is extremely accessible.

Everything can kill everything if it shoots enough combined with TLOS and no blocking terrain is a recipe for a very boring game indeed. Hopefully they'll do better.

 Latro_ wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
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.

Kinda hints at USR's and unit types being chucked out inline with what they said about every unit having their rules on their profile!

this is proving to almost changes on a 2ed to 3rd scale!

Absolutely. In truth, 7th ed. is more like 3.4 ed. Maybe even 2.5 ed. Now we're getting 3.0/4.0 ed.

And these command points...they sound like non renewable blood tithes. I love the idea already.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Damage to exterior equipment from small arms fire can make sense. Smoke launchers, cameras, aiming devices, sensor arrays, comms antennas, etc. That said, no amount of small arms fire is going to result in a heavy battle tank becoming immobilized or a wreck however, from a realism perspective at least.

I can live with this weirdness if tanks on the whole are properly balanced, not everything in the game needs to make perfect sense, just as a Leman Russ tank couldnt actually operate in real life with a breach that occupies the entirety of the hatch space

Not entirely directed at you, but Bolter shells are 40k "small arms". I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone here of the fluff that explains what even standard bolter rounds are actually supposed to be. Despite getting no respect in 40k, a lasgun (laser rifle) would be quite a nasty piece of work if it were "real" in it's 40k form.

This is a Land Raider.


This explains what a Shot Trap is, very simply.

Not to mention, "cinematic" and so forth.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:

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.

Land Raider has a minimum of six observation points be it cameras or periscopes. Which are also armored and are not easy to disable. Maybe if a platoon of guardsmen was shooting at an empty land raider point blanck fo a while than I could agree with that. But during a real battle - no, not gonna happen. Which is the whole point.

There are 3 points. Machine Spirit, Driver and Tank Commander. Disabling any of those would be a significant issue.

As for every other comment, you don't seem to know much about how weaponry or armor works. But if you want to keep going on the 'realistic' bent you have your going to keep getting shown why your realism is fantasy.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Land Raider has a minimum of six observation points be it cameras or periscopes. Which are also armored and are not easy to disable.

Cameras are armoured? Not easy to disable? Says who? You? How well armoured?

There are a lot of moving parts on those sponsons as well. Hinge joints. Yeah, I know. "they are armoured hinges that are not easy to disable."


I'm out. No point in arguing with a total mark for something on the internet.

Love that they're trying to nip superfriends dearhstars in the bud but what surprised me most was

"If you've bought a codex within the last eight weeks before the announcement of 8th, you'll be able to contact customers support so we can get you voucher for their worth"

Thats awesome, "sorry you jumped in when we're about to change the rules but we'll hook up up so you haven't wasted your money on a soon to be obsolete book"

Again, as per my last post, if you're upset that 50+ guards firing at your Land Raider are able to do a single wound to it, which will likely have no effect on ts performance given the Monster/Vehicle Wound Profile system that AoS uses, then I dunno what to say. They're committing hundreds of dice for 1 wound, what are the rest of your army doing?

 Ir0njack wrote:
Love that they're trying to nip superfriends dearhstars in the bud but what surprised me most was

"If you've bought a codex within the last eight weeks before the announcement of 8th, you'll be able to contact customers support so we can get you voucher for their worth"

Thats awesome, "sorry you jumped in when we're about to change the rules but we'll hook up up so you haven't wasted your money on a soon to be obsolete book"

Yeah, this is some excellent customer service. It will also spare us the misery of listening to people complain about "my books bein' invalid! I got cheated!" for the next couple months.

 axisofentropy wrote:

We wouldn't have these "realism" discussions about a comic book either.

I guess you haven't met many comic book nerds, then.

All this tank design/realism nonsense needs to go somewhere other than an active news thread, please.

 Bottle wrote:

 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".

I loved the meatgrinder mission in 3rd. One player is making a "last stand" and the other gets to recycle destroyed units by bringing them back on a table edge, creating a Zulu style scene. It was great fun.

Dude... the WD battle report with Praetorians vs Orks based on Rorke's Drift... legendary!

 Mymearan wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 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".

I loved the meatgrinder mission in 3rd. One player is making a "last stand" and the other gets to recycle destroyed units by bringing them back on a table edge, creating a Zulu style scene. It was great fun.

Dude... the WD battle report with Praetorians vs Orks based on Rorke's Drift... legendary!

Hell yeah, Preatorians were one of my first armies when I was young. Remember there was the guardsmen with the flamer in that battle report who jumped over the line? Amazing!

I am....not excited about most changes. In fact, I doubt if I even bother to play the new edition.

I am a tank fan, I love Steel Panthers and started playing Tau when they had cool tanks, and stopped when they didn't. I don't like the AV system being dropped. First of all, "everything can hurt everything" is lazy and unrealistic damage modelling. Second, vehicles getting MC profiles makes it very difficult to maintain both balance between tanks/MC's and weapons meant to hurt them, while keeping the tanks realistically modelled and believable (ie. they can be blown up by 1 sufficiently powerful hit, or lose mobility, weapons etc). People harp about Lasguns hurting a Leman Russ - but what about Lascannon? Presumably, Lascannon hit makes more wounds. Lets say it makes 1d6 wounds. This makes a Lascannon very dangerous against multi-wound characters, as it is now. It also makes it dangerous against infantry, which it isn't now. But I think we can assume a tank has more than 6 Wounds. Otherwise, it is way too easy to kill with Lasguns. For comparison, in AoS Empire Steam Tank has 12 wounds and 3+ save. If we take that as an example, it would be reasonable for Lascannon to do 2d6 wounds - a really lucky shot could one-shot it, most of the time you just do serious damage. Looks good, no?

But 2d6 would be crazy powerful against infantry units. So we need to balance it out with some additional rule that it only does 2d6 against Vehicles, and 1d6 against other targets. So as you see, we already need to start making exceptions for Vehicles anyway which defeats the purpose of simplification. Otherwise we dumb the game down too much. Oh, and we also need a rule for Vehicles to make them immune against Poison attacks.

The point is that why is any of this needed? AV system hardly was in need of rebalance. It was simple and intuitive and realistic. That is how armoured vehicles work in real life! It's what people expect. What you don't see in real life is enemies finishing up M1A1 with Kalashnikovs. And please, don't bring "we have aliens and superhumans and space magic, it's not realistic anyway" to this. Even a fictional setting needs its own internal sets of rules and logic which things work. Otherwise why doesn't, say, Marneus Calgar have a pistol which has same stats as Railgun.

Another aspect with AoS type progressive wounding is that now Vehicles will always die in same way. "Well, it has taken 2 wounds, lets take the Heavy Bolter off." I play 40k because it is a visual, cinematic experience. Rolling scatter for Blast markers is fun. Tanks blowing up and leaving craters is fun. Slowly whittling down hit points like in badly designed RTS game? Not cinematic or fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Land Raider has a minimum of six observation points be it cameras or periscopes. Which are also armored and are not easy to disable.

Cameras are armoured? Not easy to disable? Says who? You? How well armoured?

There are a lot of moving parts on those sponsons as well. Hinge joints.

If they have perfected super powerful Laser weapons and armour penetrating Bolter rounds, not unreasonable to assume they have also developed armoured Camera lenses and super-durable joints, no?

I like the sound of nearly all these rules, I am cautiously excited

Jambles wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Jambles wrote:

 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.

Other than positioning models in cover, maneuvering around terrain to block LoS, maneuvering to allow more models to be in range, moving to allow additional units to get involved in a charge, positioning the unit to take an objective next turn . . .

The /s was implied, I should have been more obvious...

Oops. Quoted the wrong person. I was more supporting your position.

Given how awful tanks are in 7E, and the numerous ways the 8E system could shape up, I'm not torn up by the changes.

As a diehard treadhead and the bitterest of bittervets, this isn't the most awful thing in the world to happen to tanks.

Ideal? No, but it's better than having both AV and HP's, and is easier to balance overall. We'll have to see what it actually looks like before condemning it too hard. If 100 lasgun shots might only average 1 wound on a 20 wound Russ tank, well, that'll be fine.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given how awful tanks are in 7E, and the numerous ways the 8E system could shape up, I'm not torn up by the changes.

As a diehard treadhead and the bitterest of bittervets, this isn't the most awful thing in the world to happen to tanks.

Ideal? No, but it's better than having both AV and HP's, and is easier to balance overall. We'll have to see what it actually looks like before condemning it too hard. If 100 lasgun shots might only average 1 wound on a 20 wound Russ tank, well, that'll be fine.

yeah just because you CAN damage a tank, doesn't mean you WILL. prtty sure you'll need dedicated anti-tank to kill a LR

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given how awful tanks are in 7E, and the numerous ways the 8E system could shape up, I'm not torn up by the changes.

As a diehard treadhead and the bitterest of bittervets, this isn't the most awful thing in the world to happen to tanks.

Ideal? No, but it's better than having both AV and HP's, and is easier to balance overall. We'll have to see what it actually looks like before condemning it too hard. If 100 lasgun shots might only average 1 wound on a 20 wound Russ tank, well, that'll be fine.

Really, only thing wrong with 7th edition vehicle system is that they have too few HP's. Other than that, it would be fine. Well in fact I would prefer 5th edition system, but 5th edition Codices priced vehicles too cheap.

Another issue is that this will slow down the games. Players will be looking for any advantage and will shoot small arms at vehicles even though they have little chance of doing damage.

Kings of War 1st edition was 12 pages and had everything WHFB had at the time.

BrianDavion wrote:

yeah just because you CAN damage a tank, doesn't mean you WILL. prtty sure you'll need dedicated anti-tank to kill a LR

But if the Lasguns have so negligible chance of hurting a tank, why even give them such a chance in the first place? Seems pretty pointless and only serves to bog down the game, as I said.