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.

If you really miss your templates, then roll your number of hits and THEN place your template over that many models in the target unit.


Yet another problem solved by your friendly neighborhood gorgon.

Backfire wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.

Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.

Tell that to Orks. If you didn't jam every available rokkit (edit: or Lootas) into your list - which weren't even that good at destroying vehicles without hull points around - your best chance was with a Powerklaw, which required you to catch the vehicle, hope you do damage without it driving away, and even if you do blow it up watch as the occupants disembark in an orderly fashion for their point-blank shooting or counter-assault response.

It's why I feel so strongly about the need to do away with the binary nature of AV.

If the new rules are really only about 12 pages, I'm sure every Codex in the start line-up will have them in it, just like every Battletome in AoS has the full rules in the back.
I'm also sure the new starter set will have them.

And a 12 page booklet is something everyone can print at home, at work or GW can pump out a reprint in about a week, as opposed to the 130ish pages of Shadow War.

dosiere wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
So we're getting AoS 40K edition.

And everyone seems to be OK with that. GW's brainwashing marketing has finally paid off for them.

I am not a big fan of AoS, but so far I'm ok, wouldn't say excited, about what's been revealed. Two main reasons, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this:

1) the current 40k rules are so messy IMO an AoS 40k would actually be an improvement. Not the direction I want it to go but the fact is I have not been playing 40k for a while now because the rules just kinda suck no matter how you want to play. They're too bloated for casual play and too imbalanced to get excited about tournaments. There really is hardly anywhere to go but up.

2) An AoS release for 40k would be far less dramatic than it was in fantasy. It's still essentially the same type of game, in the same universe, with the same models.

My personal take on AoS is that it has a lot of good ideas that were and remain poorly executed. if they can execute well, and I'm hoping they will because they have lots of $$$ reasons to take it more seriously than they did AoS, it might turn out to be what AoS could have been. Very casual, but fun.

Just had a look at the free AoS rules for the first time, and if this is what we're in for with nu-40k I'm pretty happy. It only took a few minutes to grasp all the basics, and I can't believe how many long-standing 40k issues are fixed in just 4 pages of rules. Everything seems consistent to boot; melee and shooting both work the same way, increasing damage to large units is very straightforward, and there's all round way less room for ambiguity. If this was 7E I'd spend the same amount of time just learning the rules for tanks as I spent reading for everything in AoS.

I can see why literally half my local club has been playing this every time I've been down lately.

Don't forget that the GHB2 is going to come out this summer too, and I imagine it will be getting tweaked slightly (shooting is too good at the moment)

 Hanskrampf wrote:
If the new rules are really only about 12 pages, I'm sure every Codex in the start line-up will have them in it, just like every Battletome in AoS has the full rules in the back.
I'm also sure the new starter set will have them.

And a 12 page booklet is something everyone can print at home, at work or GW can pump out a reprint in about a week, as opposed to the 130ish pages of Shadow War.

I wonder if there's any chance of GW simply bundling the rules in with White Dwarf?

theocracity wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.

Tell that to Orks. If you didn't jam every available rokkit into your list - which weren't even that good at destroying vehicles without hull points around - your best chance was with a Powerklaw, which required you to catch the vehicle, hope you do damage without it driving away, and even if you do blow it up watch as the occupants disembark in an orderly fashion for their point-blank shooting or counter-assault response.

It's why I feel so strongly about the need to do away with the binary nature of AV.

Land Raider was an issue for the Orks, yes, but not so much other tanks. I played Mech Tau and usually lost badly against Orks. Bikes and Multi-assaulting Boyz blobs were brutal against AV10 and weak infantry.
However, you're not going to stop a Land Raider with your Shootas even in 8ED anyway so it's not likely to be much different. This is actually why I oppose the "everything can hurt everything" principle. Not that I am afraid that Lasguns and Bolters will kill all Vehicles, but because I think it will lead to lots of "hope for the best" shooting with tons of dice rolling for little real results and will only serve to bog the game down.

Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Worth emphasising this


Q: How will free rules be presented?

A: Digital and all of our stores and some independent stockiest will have a limited supply at launch in print format

if you want paper copies it sounds like you'll need to be quick

Sigh, not this again. I would have thought GW would have learnt from the Necromunda fiasco. I mean at least they could put up a pre-order so they could know how many to put in circulation.

If you want paper copies, you'll need to be quick.

Or own a printer since it'll be presented free.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

theocracity wrote:
Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?

Can' roll To Wound if they don't get hit in the first place.

If this is:

1. Roll To Hit.
2. Now that you've hit, roll to see how many you actually hit!
3. Roll To Wound.

Then that's what this'd cause. If there's no initial To Hit roll, then that's a different story.

Can't believe I'm agreeing with you but this post.

Of course things go wrong in war with dud shells, and flamethrowers blowing up and I support that in any wargame 100% but IMO, the time for bad luck to affect a weapon should always be when you're trying to hit, never when you're trying to wound.

A successful hit roll in my book means you've paid your tax. You deserve the benefits for your success, subject to Armour saves of course where applicable.

Then why do we roll to wound at all? I mean if you hit all models should be wounded right. So if your demolisher hits and rolls all 1s to wound that is bad. I think people arguing this point are being intentionally obtuse, how is Roll to hit, determine number of hits, roll to wound, functionally different than place template, roll scatter, determine number of hits, roll to wound? I see 2 differences 1.) One is tactile, the other is not, 2.) with the template you know the number of hits if you roll a hit on the scatter dice. On the flip side big cannons do far more against monsters and vehicles than ever before.

If anything removal of templates to me is far more "realistic" in that a demolisher cannon hitting a riptide might now kill the riptide, instead of simply doing 1 hit. Demolisher wiping 10 terminators, but only doing 1 wound to an MC makes far less sense than, determining number of hits to which ever unit is attacked.

To me removal of templates speeds up the game, removes potential arguments (number of models hit when it is close, measure of scatter, angle of scatter), and increases effectiveness of those weapons by and large (especially small blast templates, I'd much rather my plasma cannon do D3+1 wounds for example, than placing the small blast which usually hits one guy.)

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Worth emphasising this


Q: How will free rules be presented?

A: Digital and all of our stores and some independent stockiest will have a limited supply at launch in print format

if you want paper copies it sounds like you'll need to be quick

Sigh, not this again. I would have thought GW would have learnt from the Necromunda fiasco. I mean at least they could put up a pre-order so they could know how many to put in circulation.

If you want paper copies, you'll need to be quick.

Or own a printer since it'll be presented free.

It should also be pointed out that Limited is a subjective term. Betrayel at Calth was also a limited release but had such a huge run that you can still find boxes of it for sale at GW.

Do we know if there will be an off hand option for a lucky explosion on vehicles or will they need to be whittled down before breaking down? An instant death option of sorts I guess.

Backfire wrote:

theocracity wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.

Tell that to Orks. If you didn't jam every available rokkit into your list - which weren't even that good at destroying vehicles without hull points around - your best chance was with a Powerklaw, which required you to catch the vehicle, hope you do damage without it driving away, and even if you do blow it up watch as the occupants disembark in an orderly fashion for their point-blank shooting or counter-assault response.

It's why I feel so strongly about the need to do away with the binary nature of AV.

Land Raider was an issue for the Orks, yes, but not so much other tanks. I played Mech Tau and usually lost badly against Orks. Bikes and Multi-assaulting Boyz blobs were brutal against AV10 and weak infantry.
However, you're not going to stop a Land Raider with your Shootas even in 8ED anyway so it's not likely to be much different. This is actually why I oppose the "everything can hurt everything" principle. Not that I am afraid that Lasguns and Bolters will kill all Vehicles, but because I think it will lead to lots of "hope for the best" shooting with tons of dice rolling for little real results and will only serve to bog the game down.

It wasn't just land raiders that were a problem - anything that was AV13 wasn't going to be penetrated by Lootas either, so before Hull Points those were pretty tough to crack as well. Fast assaults were an option, but more often than not they were your only option - if those units were neutralized you got pretty skunked.

As for wasting time shooting lasguns - I'm fine with that as an alternative to the sense of futility that comes from having all of your options get eliminated or be unusable from the start. Its the difference between a game against an all-Knight army being an auto-scoop because no dice roll can possibly matter, versus a desperate last stand where you try to bring down the beast against all odds.

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.

Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.

By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.

I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...

Backfire wrote:

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.

Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.

By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.

Flames of War and Bolt Action are WW2 games where Infantry are shooting small bullets, not self-propelled explosive .75 rounds or laser beams.

Backfire wrote:

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.

Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.

By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.

At the end of the day who really cares though? People are trying to apply realism to a game where the human infantry carry laser rifles. The fact that a lasgun could in the remotest possibility hurt a land raider just opens the window to that epic moment in a battle that will stick with you for a long time after it happens. the same way a guardsman might be able to wallop a deamon prince in close combat. it will happen very rarely, but it'll create awesome battle stories.

 Capamaru wrote:
I am really curious on how effectively can a ton of lasgun shots remove a landraider. Having served in the army and actually been inside a tank I find the idea of someone standing and shooting against a mbt hilarious. Most non anti tank weapons are just creating scratches in the paintjob...

Someone did the math earlier and I believe it would take 100 guardsmen a total of 11 rounds of continuos fire to down a land raider. (maybe it was 50 guardsmen - either way a completely unrealistic game situation).

Backfire wrote:

theocracity wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.

Tell that to Orks. If you didn't jam every available rokkit into your list - which weren't even that good at destroying vehicles without hull points around - your best chance was with a Powerklaw, which required you to catch the vehicle, hope you do damage without it driving away, and even if you do blow it up watch as the occupants disembark in an orderly fashion for their point-blank shooting or counter-assault response.

It's why I feel so strongly about the need to do away with the binary nature of AV.

Land Raider was an issue for the Orks, yes, but not so much other tanks. I played Mech Tau and usually lost badly against Orks. Bikes and Multi-assaulting Boyz blobs were brutal against AV10 and weak infantry.
However, you're not going to stop a Land Raider with your Shootas even in 8ED anyway so it's not likely to be much different. This is actually why I oppose the "everything can hurt everything" principle. Not that I am afraid that Lasguns and Bolters will kill all Vehicles, but because I think it will lead to lots of "hope for the best" shooting with tons of dice rolling for little real results and will only serve to bog the game down.

I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.

Backfire wrote:

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.

Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.

If I had the chance, in these hypothetical rules, of shooting my 40 IG lasguns at anything else over a Land Raider, i'd most likely shoot at anything else. If I was given the chance to get a wound by shooting it, I probably would. If you think this is a waste of your time, you're pretty miserly.

They have said that on average a 2000 point game has lost an hour of play time. That seems to suggest that all that dice rolling is not taking as long as remembering or referencing rules. It's a wargame, there is always going to be some down time. Given that they have said on twitter that you're looking at wounding a Land Raider with 500 Imperial Guard (which is likely an exaggeration), I think you're creating an issue that will probably not exist.

Armored: This unit ignores wounds from weapons that don't have the key word Armor Piercing.

Flank the Tank: This unit doubles its attack dice when attacking units with keyword Vehicle from behind. See diagram in the core rules for an explanation of flanking/behind a vehicle.

These are some of the kind of things they could do that work with a current AoS core.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My issue with the lack of templates is that it just doesn't make sense.

I fire a Demolisher cannon at you and roll a 1... so the most powerful tank-portable explosive the Imperium can muster manages to hit 1 guy with a massive explosion? How does that make any sense?

Most shots miss in war, but when a bloody great explosion goess off at the centre of 10 people, it's not like people get hit randomly by the expanding wave of fire and pressure. It hits everything.

Same applies to flame throwers. You don't wave a sheet of flame at 10 people and watch as 5+ of them just stand there wondering why their buddies are on fire.

This is mitigated by how the damage stat works in AOS.

If a Demolisher cannon has a damage stat of 2 or more (and it most likely will), it does that number of wounds to the entire unit. So if it is something like damage 5 a single hit can still translate to 5 wounds. D6 damage is common in AoS, but there are still units with fixed values (Skarbrand's axe Slaughter being 3 damage as an example). And keep in mind this is on a per-hit basis, so it's possible to get a lot of wounds. The aforementioned Skarbrand can potentially dish out 24 wounds, with 8 damage 3 attacks.

And this edition's handling of flame throwers doesn't really answer that question either. I might put a template over a unit of 20 orks, but I only hit the ones I can land the template on, which still leads to the rest of the unit sitting there unaffected. The issue you bring up has more to do with morale, I'd wager (Do we keep doing what we're doing or does Phil's "I'm on fire" screaming make retreat a more tempting option?)

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.

Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.

By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.

At the end of the day who really cares though? People are trying to apply realism to a game where the human infantry carry laser rifles. The fact that a lasgun could in the remotest possibility hurt a land raider just opens the window to that epic moment in a battle that will stick with you for a long time after it happens. the same way a guardsman might be able to wallop a deamon prince in close combat. it will happen very rarely, but it'll create awesome battle stories.

Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?

 Mymearan wrote:

Backfire wrote:

By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.

Flames of War and Bolt Action are WW2 games where Infantry are shooting small bullets, not self-propelled explosive .75 rounds or laser beams.

Warhammer 40 000 is a science fiction game where tanks are made of super-tough adamantium or ceramite, not regular steel.

Breng77 wrote:

I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.

so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.

Backfire wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

Backfire wrote:

By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.

Flames of War and Bolt Action are WW2 games where Infantry are shooting small bullets, not self-propelled explosive .75 rounds or laser beams.

Warhammer 40 000 is a science fiction game where tanks are made of super-tough adamantium or ceramite, not regular steel.

I would love it if both the 'rules should match current day reality' and 'but it's sci fi tho' arguments would realize that neither side adds anything to a conversation that is ultimately about a game abstraction.

Welcome to 8th edition

 Mymearan wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.

Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.

By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.

Flames of War and Bolt Action are WW2 games where Infantry are shooting small bullets, not self-propelled explosive .75 rounds or laser beams.

The same .75 explosive rounds that wouldn't be able to hit the broadside of a barn (rocket propelled guns have been tried, the basic physics doesn't work terribly well) and laser beams that could be defeated by special paint or fog/smoke/etc?

 DynamicCalories wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.

Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.

By the way, since people are now talking how realistic, intuitive and good game design it is that tank's frontal armour can be penetrated by small arms: in Flame of War or Bolt Action, infantry can not hurt a tank at all from frontal aspect with small arms fire.

At the end of the day who really cares though? People are trying to apply realism to a game where the human infantry carry laser rifles. The fact that a lasgun could in the remotest possibility hurt a land raider just opens the window to that epic moment in a battle that will stick with you for a long time after it happens. the same way a guardsman might be able to wallop a deamon prince in close combat. it will happen very rarely, but it'll create awesome battle stories.

Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?

The problem is that, as much as people bring this up, all too often it ends up with a "well...that was dumb" moment of reflection on a rules artifact rearing its ugly head rather than some great epic moment.

Breaking news:
Pete Foley confirmed that Destroyer weapons will be gone in 8th Edition: https://twitter.com/GeekJockPete/status/856833455568629761

 DynamicCalories wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Hefty and fairly uncharitable assumption that people will waste their lasgun shots "hoping for the best" unless there are no other targets in range or unless there is a slim chance of getting the one wound that they need to kill it. They still have the option to not waste your, or their own time shooting.

Why wouldn't they? After all, if they roll ungodly well, and opponents' saves are all 1's, they might do serious damage. It's very unlikely, but it would be completely irrational not to take the chance.

If I had the chance, in these hypothetical rules, of shooting my 40 IG lasguns at anything else over a Land Raider, i'd most likely shoot at anything else. If I was given the chance to get a wound by shooting it, I probably would. If you think this is a waste of your time, you're pretty miserly.

Why? Seems to me it's perfectly reasonable to hope that game has no mechanics which require lots of effort for little potential gain. Isn't this one of the things people have been complaining about 7th edition?

 DynamicCalories wrote:

They have said that on average a 2000 point game has lost an hour of play time. That seems to suggest that all that dice rolling is not taking as long as remembering or referencing rules. It's a wargame, there is always going to be some down time. Given that they have said on twitter that you're looking at wounding a Land Raider with 500 Imperial Guard (which is likely an exaggeration), I think you're creating an issue that will probably not exist.

They said 500 Conscripts (which have BS2...). It might not be that much of an exaggaration. Under current rules it takes average 250 Conscripts to kill a Riptide with Lasguns. Land Raider should be at about same toughness class, or thereabouts.