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 the theoretical Landraider stat line is 24 wounds with a 2+ save and lasguns wound it on 6's, fire 2 shots, and hit on 4+, it takes 864 guardsmen to kill a land raider. Or 6 turns of 144 guardsmen firing at only that Landraider and taking 0 casualties the entire game. Seems pretty good to me.

If the Landraider stats are 20 wounds with a +3 save then it takes 360 of the same guardsmen to kill a Landraider, or 6 turns of 60 guardsmen.

Still seems like pretty good use of a tank to me. I would be happy to have them shooting at that all game than shooting at my infantry...

 kodos wrote:

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.

So like age of sigmar (and a ton of more games, but the closest they'd draw inspiration from)?

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

well, with how they got abused by 7E, as opposed to originally being reflective of the most destructive titan mounted weapons, I'd say this is a good thing.

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

Well, that is no big loss.
Any word on how Invulnerable saves will be handled?

Well then it isn't a huge difference is it. Would people currently waste their 250 conscripts shooting a Riptide right now?

As for Vaktathi's comment on "well that was dumb" - I point you to the absurd humour of 40k. You can't have incredibly cool without incredibly dumb. Such is the way a system based on dice rolls work. You're always gonna roll an improbably 1 or 6 at some point.

Well, y'know, until they introduce a new weapon that needs to kill things right away, then we'll see those units get the 'Destroyer' bespoke rule.

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

Warhammer 40,000 is a science fiction game where power swords, which are supposedly able to cut through terminator armor, have little to no effect on vehicles. But that same energy, applied to a fist weapon, has a good chance of allowing someone to punch a tank to death.

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Well then it isn't a huge difference is it. Would people currently waste their 250 conscripts shooting a Riptide right now?

As for Vaktathi's comment on "well that was dumb" - I point you to the absurd humour of 40k. You can't have incredibly cool without incredibly dumb. Such is the way a system based on dice rolls work. You're always gonna roll an improbably 1 or 6 at some point.

Agreed. I'd rather the statistically unlikely 'that was dumb' moments over the statistically impossible 'that was dumb' moments (like trying to play a Green Tide list against a Knight army - which should be visually pretty cool but is almost pointless to play out).

Hell, RNG dumb moments are one reason why I love Blood Bowl so much!

A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.

If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.

theocracity wrote:

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.

You're right, that was dumb.

I cant believe this ridiculous Land Raider discussion went on for so long.

They said that anything can hurt anything, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

No one said anything about a load of las guns taking out a land raider.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 kodos wrote:

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.

So like age of sigmar (and a ton of more games, but the closest they'd draw inspiration from)?

more like 2nd edi 40k as the closest to draw inspiration from

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.

If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.

That's not really tactics though, that's just list building and purchasing decisions. The only tactical element of that is knowing your local metagame, which will still be important - there's just less chance of there being binary games where you hardly have a reason to even put models on the table.

I mean, in your example, 9 times out of 10 shotgun beats bow - but that doesn't mean the bow has literally no point in even picking up the dice.

Of course there will still be tactics. Just because 50 guardsmen can maybe take 1 solitary wound of a Land Raider, it doesn't mean they should fire at it when it is at full wounds and there are other units on the table.

It does mean it will perhaps make sense to decide whether to co-ordinate your shooting towards a severely wounded Land Raider or not.

If they could never hurt it, then there would never be any reason to shoot it, which gives you less decisions to make. More decisions = more engagement and more tactical choices. That's the opposite of dumbing down.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.

If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.

So to point out how stupid a system where everything can hurt everything is, we use an example from a game where everything can hurt everything?

 Rayvon wrote:
I cant believe this ridiculous Land Raider discussion went on for so long.

They said that anything can hurt anything, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

No one said anything about a load of las guns taking out a land raider.

A Land raider as it stands it is quite easily dispatched by lascannon fire or a plethora of other weapons capable of doing so and widespread among all races. Adding insult to injury now lasguns or bolters or shurikens will be able to do so also, so how about a couple of lascannon shots and then shoot the flashlight guns at it to finish it of... is this dumb enough for you?

 Rayvon wrote:
I cant believe this ridiculous Land Raider discussion went on for so long.

They said that anything can hurt anything, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

No one said anything about a load of las guns taking out a land raider.

Except this guy

 frozenwastes wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.

If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.

So when they say everything can hurt everything, but that it would take something in the order of 200 guardsmen to kill a Land Raider in the new rules... does this not create the supposedly crucial depth and challenge that you already enjoy in 7th edition's vehicle rules? Considering, you wouldn't fire those guardsmen at the LR before, and you still wouldn't now. The same decision is present, you still get to pick your targets efficiently.

That's the key thing to take away here: some things being immune to certain weapons was NOT a universal trait in the current edition. Currently existing heavy units like Riptide battle suits were vulnerable to small arms weaponry but only in the order of hundreds of shots. Here's a tactical distinction for you: do you waste 200 lasgun shots at the riptide, or fire at an infantry unit instead? If the target had an AV, there would be no opportunity for that same tactical decision, the choice isn't just obvious it's forced. So by that logic, would you still say the new system 'removes a tactical element'? Is it possible that they actually just changed a tactical element?

The butt injuries are fierce over this decision, despite an incredible lack of available information about the game as a whole. If AV is the cross you want to die on for 8th edition, I'd refer you to the last two or three editions of fans groaning that the vehicle rules were crap. They changed the rules as they were asked, and get scorn for it from the vocal minority; some things never change!

 Capamaru wrote:
A Land raider as it stands it is quite easily dispatched by lascannon fire or a plethora of other weapons capable of doing so and widespread among all races. Adding insult to injury now lasguns or bolters or shurikens will be able to do so also, so how about a couple of lascannon shots and then shoot the flashlight guns at it to finish it of... is this dumb enough for you?

Currently, 1 Lascannon shot rolling perfectly equals 1 dead Land Raider, but 4 Lascannon shots rolling perfectly equals 1 still fully functional Riptide. Is that dumb enough ?

In #New40k a Lascannon may do D6 wounds, and Land Raiders will probably have 13+ wounds. So 1 Lascannon cannot 1 shot it anymore. And in fact may need a bunch of Lascannon shots hitting to take it out reliably. We don't know yet. But removing the 1 shot may equal 1 kill issue with vehicles is a huge help for them

 Jambles wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.

If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.

So when they say everything can hurt everything, but that it would take something in the order of 200 guardsmen to kill a Land Raider in the new rules... does this not create the supposedly crucial depth and challenge that you already enjoy in 7th edition's vehicle rules? Considering, you wouldn't fire those guardsmen at the LR before, and you still wouldn't now. The same decision is present, you still get to pick your targets efficiently.

That's the key thing to take away here: some things being immune to certain weapons was NOT a universal trait in the current edition. Currently existing heavy units like Riptide battle suits were vulnerable to small arms weaponry but only in the order of hundreds of shots. Here's a tactical distinction for you: do you waste 200 lasgun shots at the riptide, or fire at an infantry unit instead? If the target had an AV, there would be no opportunity for that same tactical decision, the choice isn't just obvious it's forced. So by that logic, would you still say the new system 'removes a tactical element'? Is it possible that they actually just changed a tactical element?

Now repeat the same example but instead of lasguns and guardsmen use eldar jetbikes with scatter lasers. Giving everyone the ability to hurt anything can lead to some incredibly blunt lists. It might look as tactical decision making but we have to see the whole game to make up our mind.

Is there a transcript of the Q&A anywhere? I can't seem to find one, though my search-fu is weak today.

 Capamaru wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.

If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.

So when they say everything can hurt everything, but that it would take something in the order of 200 guardsmen to kill a Land Raider in the new rules... does this not create the supposedly crucial depth and challenge that you already enjoy in 7th edition's vehicle rules? Considering, you wouldn't fire those guardsmen at the LR before, and you still wouldn't now. The same decision is present, you still get to pick your targets efficiently.

That's the key thing to take away here: some things being immune to certain weapons was NOT a universal trait in the current edition. Currently existing heavy units like Riptide battle suits were vulnerable to small arms weaponry but only in the order of hundreds of shots. Here's a tactical distinction for you: do you waste 200 lasgun shots at the riptide, or fire at an infantry unit instead? If the target had an AV, there would be no opportunity for that same tactical decision, the choice isn't just obvious it's forced. So by that logic, would you still say the new system 'removes a tactical element'? Is it possible that they actually just changed a tactical element?

Now repeat the same example but instead of lasguns and guardsmen use eldar jetbikes with scatter lasers. Giving everyone the ability to hurt anything can lead to some incredibly blunt lists. It might look as tactical decision making but we have to see the whole game to make up our mind.

Precisely my point!

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I cant believe this ridiculous Land Raider discussion went on for so long.

They said that anything can hurt anything, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

No one said anything about a load of las guns taking out a land raider.

Except this guy

 frozenwastes wrote:

Personally I love this image. Pretty sure even the BEST meat grinder will fail if you choke it with enough guardsmen steaks.


Oh and to all the real life MBT commanders in here complaining about how unrealistic it is that a landraider be stopped by guardsmen I have to laugh that they even field a land raider. What do I mean? Simply the fact that all imperial tanks barring the rhino chassis are not mobile out the factory do to the lack of a fething suspension. Seriously, every guard tank, and the beloved LR would be sitting in one fething spot tearing turf. So can we please stop with the real life BS.

MaxT wrote:

 Capamaru wrote:
A Land raider as it stands it is quite easily dispatched by lascannon fire or a plethora of other weapons capable of doing so and widespread among all races. Adding insult to injury now lasguns or bolters or shurikens will be able to do so also, so how about a couple of lascannon shots and then shoot the flashlight guns at it to finish it of... is this dumb enough for you?

Currently, 1 Lascannon shot rolling perfectly equals 1 dead Land Raider, but 4 Lascannon shots rolling perfectly equals 1 still fully functional Riptide. Is that dumb enough ?

In #New40k a Lascannon may do D6 wounds, and Land Raiders will probably have 13+ wounds. So 1 Lascannon cannot 1 shot it anymore. And in fact may need a bunch of Lascannon shots hitting to take it out reliably. We don't know yet. But removing the 1 shot may equal 1 kill issue with vehicles is a huge help for them

Iam a huge fun of making vehicles stronger... much stronger but adding lasguns the list of weapons that can hurt them isn't a step in the right direction IMHO.

auticus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Pete Foley confirms on Twitter that in the new 40k you WON'T be able to shoot in/out of combat

Now if only they'd do the same in AOS, my happy jig would be complete.

Wound rolls dependent on the target and tighter line of sight rules would be nice too.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

Wound rolls depending on your enemy and tighter line of sight rules would be good too.

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.

If you place a template and roll 2D6 to see how far it scatters to determine if you hit a unit; you can get the same result from just rolling a D6 per shot (just a few for big slow firing guns) to hit and another to wound.
Then templates have to roll to wound and then save. All those rolls average out the result.
No templates gives a few saves (with a mod reflecting yield of the explosive). Then a random roll for damage inflicted. Less rolls means a greater standard deviation, so results are much more hit and miss.
In other words, it's more abstract (so harder to visualise, but faster to do), but the results are similar.

I sort of want the K Overlords introduced.

They already look like they have on spacesuits. Just say their weapons are power weapons and their guns are high powered lasers or something.

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

well, with how they got abused by 7E, as opposed to originally being reflective of the most destructive titan mounted weapons, I'd say this is a good thing.

Wonder how they will restat the existing Destroyer weapons. Maybe by making them inflict varying numbers of multiple wounds per hit? If they remove the Destroyer weapon rule, they need to ensure the big models do not become too difficult to kill.

 Rayvon wrote:
I cant believe this ridiculous Land Raider discussion went on for so long.

They said that anything can hurt anything, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

No one said anything about a load of las guns taking out a land raider.

We're only taking THEIR words to its logical conclusion.

I will bet my last penny that somewhere out there, there is that person with an Imperial Guard Army of 500 conscripts just waiting to take down that Landraider with lasgun fire

In my 25+ years of wargaming, I have learned never to underestimate Planet Geek, because that person always turns up.

If such a situation should arise, then the game designers have only themselves to blame with their "anything can hurt anything" comment.

 Capamaru wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
A huge tactical element of games such as Infinity is picking your match-ups. Swiss Guard with HMG vs. Alguaciles = dead Alguacilies nine times out of ten. Shotgun vs. tactical bow at short range = shotgun wins nine times out of ten. That also existed in 40K, to a lesser extent, but was a integral part of the game that provided depth and challenge. We're acting as generals here, and the Charge of the Light Brigade shows what happens when you pick unfavourable match-ups.

If everything can hurt everything it not only becomes a little silly, but also removes a tactical element of the game that is incredibly engaging. Seems like dumbing down to me.

So when they say everything can hurt everything, but that it would take something in the order of 200 guardsmen to kill a Land Raider in the new rules... does this not create the supposedly crucial depth and challenge that you already enjoy in 7th edition's vehicle rules? Considering, you wouldn't fire those guardsmen at the LR before, and you still wouldn't now. The same decision is present, you still get to pick your targets efficiently.

That's the key thing to take away here: some things being immune to certain weapons was NOT a universal trait in the current edition. Currently existing heavy units like Riptide battle suits were vulnerable to small arms weaponry but only in the order of hundreds of shots. Here's a tactical distinction for you: do you waste 200 lasgun shots at the riptide, or fire at an infantry unit instead? If the target had an AV, there would be no opportunity for that same tactical decision, the choice isn't just obvious it's forced. So by that logic, would you still say the new system 'removes a tactical element'? Is it possible that they actually just changed a tactical element?

Now repeat the same example but instead of lasguns and guardsmen use eldar jetbikes with scatter lasers. Giving everyone the ability to hurt anything can lead to some incredibly blunt lists. It might look as tactical decision making but we have to see the whole game to make up our mind.

Remember that waiting to see the whole picture includes waiting to see how currently OP weapons like scatter lasers get rebalanced under a new rules set.

Currently scatter lasers are so good because they have high enough Strength to glance light vehicle AV, have high ROF and their low AP doesn't matter because AP doesn't matter unless it's 1 or 2 and vehicle's don't get a save anyway. The few HP vehicles have don't matter much because scatter laser strength is just enough to break the binary protection of AV and render it moot.

In new 40k, vehicles will have armor saves and it's likely that scatter lasers won't have great Rend value. They'll still likely have decent strength and ROF, but it might not matter if most shots ping off the armor save and those that get through have to deal with a higher pool of HP.

On the topic of speculating about the release:

14 force org charts is enough to give each race (not faction) one, so each one can have a bit of flavour:
1: CSM
2: Daemons
3: SM (various)
4: IG
5: Inquisition (Soroitas etc)
6: Mechanicus
7: Agents
8: Knights
9: Eldar (various)
10: Nids
11: Orks
12: Necrons
13:Tau
14: Generic (maybe allied?)