Warhammer 40,000 new edition announced & new site ; UPDATE 28/04 Psychic Phase

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.

**Daedalus81**

Kanluwen wrote:

Assault--Move and fire with no penalties.
Rapid Fire--Standing still lets you double your shots.
Heavy--Move OR fire.

Oh this is so, so good for Rubrics.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Can we get spoiler tags on the pics?

**Elbows**

That would be ideal (and how it worked in 2nd). Good for attacking large creatures and vehicles...borderline useless against single models (outside of Terminators). Also seems very intentional that -3 AP may be close to the maximum, which would still allow a Terminator a 5+ save (essentially mirroring a 5+ invulnerable).

Still sad to see the reduced 48" range on the lascannon.

**judgedoug**

warboss wrote:
Fair enough. I would argue personally that they're doing "better" but not their "best". IMO, their "best" would be to release the rules in advance and truly get community feedback and crowdsourced error finding before the release like many smaller companies do. T

I'd bet good money that their 8th edition playtest group is larger than any open beta feedback from any smaller company.

**DynamicCalories**

warboss wrote:
DynamicCalories wrote:

In fairness I did expand on this point with caveats. Context is important. I will put up with plenty of salt, I am optimistic based on what they have reported to us so far, and how open they are being right of f the bat. Like I said, people are entirely within their rights to be conservative about buying new things until the rules are fully out, but I think they're doing their best to be transparent and open right now and I think responding with cynicism at this stage is ultimately as futile as being optimistic, its just more pleasant to be optimistic. If it turns out 8th is terrible, I will be sad because I would like an entry point into 40k, and 7th is not it.

Fair enough. I would argue personally that they're doing "better" but not their "best". IMO, their "best" would be to release the rules in advance and truly get community feedback and crowdsourced error finding before the release like many smaller companies do. That to me would be doing their best given the blunders of the last two major releases (the initial AOS rollout and the entirety of 7th edition 40k). YMMV. Talking select community influencers like Reecius over at Frontline and the Nova and Adepticon folks is better than not talking to them but in a large part they cherry picked the half glass full crowd by only talking to them. It's not that they won't give them negative feedback on certain things (the various tourney FAQs being an example) but those folks by virtue of continuing to organize such big events at a minimum at least halfhearted accepted the modern era of greedhammer in both AOS and 40k flavors. Releasing the rules that would be free anyways months ahead of time (and prior to printing) would give them feedback from a completely different portion of their potential fanbase (namely the folks like myself who have chose to let my 20,000pts+ of painted 40k sit unused rather than play/buy the current edition). Input from folks like Crablezworth's Cover Slaves youtube battle report channel who still play but actively constructively criticize instead of primarily promoting is useful as well.

That's cool. You seem entirely reasonable about this, and I think your points are all good. As I said in my updated post, I have my own anecdotal experience which gears me to a certain attitude, and you rightfully have yours. There is no point in everyone being as chipper as me, but they have won my trust back which I would never have expected 5 years ago.

**Eyjio**

With exception to the AP values, that's pretty much exactly what I was expecting to see. Lascannons being -3 rend is interesting - now marines get a save from them! Definitely alleviates my fears around terminators being too weak though.

**kestral**

Reasonable. Does give light armored troops a boost.

**Daedalus81**

This is great news for Ork players, too. Armor saves against bolters and flamers. Yeesh!

**RoboDragon**

Looks like horde units are getting a bit of a buff (much needed). But early days, can't wait to see more weapons.

**Nostromodamus**

Daedalus81 wrote:
This is great news for Ork players, too. Armor saves against bolters and flamers. Yeesh!

Ork t-shirt tech has advanced considerably.

**warboss**

judgedoug wrote:
warboss wrote:
Fair enough. I would argue personally that they're doing "better" but not their "best". IMO, their "best" would be to release the rules in advance and truly get community feedback and crowdsourced error finding before the release like many smaller companies do. T

I'd bet good money that their 8th edition playtest group is larger than any open beta feedback from any smaller company.

Probably. I'd bet that their playtest group is more heavily weighted toward folks who would ultimately accept any version of the rules up to and including just another tweak of the current rules that they played despite its flaws than with an open beta. Selection bias is a thing.

**v0iddrgn**

MEQ's get an armor save against Lascannons now!

edit* ninja'd

**Daedalus81**

warboss wrote:

Probably. I'd bet that their playtest group is more heavily weighted toward folks who would ultimately accept any version of the rules up to and including just another tweak of the current rules that they played despite its flaws than with an open beta. Selection bias is a thing.

And what makes you think some of these other negative people would do a better job? Do you think they have a better grasp at what makes a good rule? I think not.

**Vaktathi**

Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.

Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.

As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6 dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.

Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.

It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).

**Daedalus81**

v0iddrgn wrote:
MEQ's get an armor save against Lascannons now!

I wouldn't shoot it at MEQ's, but terminators are still a good target.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Probably slow on the up take, but one assumes Instant Death as we know it is gone?

**Daedalus81**

Speaking of targets -- the new Dreadnought seems only marginally better against the new lascannon. I'm curious to see how cover works now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Probably slow on the up take, but one assumes Instant Death as we know it is gone?

I think most definitely.

**RoboDragon**

" Michael Ryan - I like it. I did expect guns to be a bit more lethal though than this.
Like · Reply · 16 mins

Warhammer 40,000 - Getting shot with a boltgun and having the mass-reactive shell explode inside you is pretty lethal... "

Hmm perhaps we will see a special rule for boltguns?

**Earth127**

signal from the frontline link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNuwHXXr3XQ&t=1076s

might inspire some hope.

**kronk**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Probably slow on the up take, but one assumes Instant Death as we know it is gone?

I would not. They did say that S and T are still meaningful, so we'll see?

**Mr Morden**

Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.

Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.

As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6 dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.

Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.

It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).

Well basically the Dreadnought now has a 5+ save and can't be one shoted immediately which is good.

**Kanluwen**

Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.

Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.

As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6 dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.

Now, this may not be an issue if heavy weapons like Lascannons are rarer/more expensive or if vehicles are cheaper, we dont know yet, but but if they maintain roughly the same levels as they are now, both vehicles and MC's are going to be notably easier to kill on average, not including newfound minor vulnerability to small arms fire.

It's also interesting that, with ASM's back, they appear to be more subdued than in 2E. 2E bolters (and lasguns) had a -1 ASM, Lascannons a -6 IIRC, now that it 0 and -3 (and, seemingly for the first time ever in the game's history, allowing power armor to save against a Lascannon without some sort of extra enhancement).

I think that it's important to wait for the setup for Heavy, Assault, etc.

If Heavy weapons can only fire OR move, then it becomes a case of prioritizing things--especially if we retain the way AoS mandates unit cohesion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Probably slow on the up take, but one assumes Instant Death as we know it is gone?

I would not. They did say that S and T are still meaningful, so we'll see?

Instant Death values, as we know them now, are seemingly gone. Destroyer weapons too.

Strength and Toughness are still meaningful in that you wound S v T.

**Ferrum_Sanguinis**

I'm wondering, do Terminators no longer have a 5++? Cause with these new rules to weapons and their extra wounds they might not need them.

**Mezmerro**

BrookM wrote:
New video

When they said "hope" I was expecting a portal to open and TS/Tzeenchian daemon army to doombolt Nurgrlites to ash.
Also the argument of "because Galaxy belongs to humans" sounds so empty when fighting other humans.

**Ragnar Blackmane**

Kanluwen wrote:
So there you go.

xttz wrote:Full post here:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/26/warhammer-40000-weapons/

Lovely, pretty much what I hoped for. The big takeaways:

- Bolters are not magical anti-vehicle or terminator weapons that can reduce the save of a terminator to 3+ or dreadnought to 4+ respectively. Together with Lasguns (which is now basically guaranteed to still be S3) that means you will still need hundreds of shots to take out e.g. a Dreadnought by itself, let alone heavier vehicles.

- Servo Armor units now actually still have a 6+ armor save against lascannons. That's pretty cool.

- Flamers are still good against massed infantry and can now do SERIOUS damage to single models as well. http://files.sharenator.com/kill_it_with_fire-s670x394-87720.jpg] As it should be. So now a flamer specialized unit is quite potent and deadly all around rather than being limited to one niche and being useless against everything else. Even more so for Heavy Flamers and Immolators that are likely going to be S5 or even S6. We can finally efficiently BBQ the big bugs, WOHOOOOO. Also if they don't screw up the points the Pyrovore is now likely to be actually worthwhile

- Expensive and highly specialized AT weapons like Lascannons are still great at taking out vehicles and also monstrous creatures, e.g. potentially a Dreadnought in two hits, while still getting rid of the awful, frustrating and unfun one-shot kills that plagued vehicles in the past.

**warboss**

Daedalus81 wrote:
warboss wrote:

Probably. I'd bet that their playtest group is more heavily weighted toward folks who would ultimately accept any version of the rules up to and including just another tweak of the current rules that they played despite its flaws than with an open beta. Selection bias is a thing.

And what makes you think some of these other negative people would do a better job? Do you think they have a better grasp at what makes a good rule? I think not.

So you think that limiting the feedback pool to only those who have enthusiastically supported the game this edition and excluding those who haven't gives them a wider range of feedback and catches more potential issues prior to release? In my experience, white knights and sycophantic employees rarely give good constructive feedback when the boss doesn't want to hear it... see 7th edition for example. Expanding the pool to those who accepted the current substandard and tried to improve on it like community organizers is better but hardly ideal.

**Daedalus81**

Mr Morden wrote:

Well basically the Dreadnought now has a 5+ save and can't be one shoted immediately which is good.

6+ save.

**Jambles**

Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, seeing the Lascannon profile somewhat confirms my fears for vehicles. Even as T/Sv units now with 8 wounds, a Dreadnought will require fewer shots to kill on average than before.

Under the current paradigm an AV12 dread with 3HP will require an average of 6.75 BS4 AP2 Lascannon shots to kill, rounding up, say 7, with a 1/18 chance of any one shot inflicting an Explodes result.

As T7 W8 Sv3+, against a BS4 -3sv mod D6 dmg Lascannon, the chance to one shot is gone, but your average number of shots to kill drops to 4.93, round to 5.

Does this math account for things like extra hullpoints sustained from repeated results and such? And is it 1/18 including the roll to-hit?
I never lost dreadnoughts to lascannons anyways - I'd like to see the math for autocannons and other s7 spam.

**Kanluwen**

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I'm wondering, do Terminators no longer have a 5++? Cause with these new rules to weapons and their extra wounds they might not need them.

They've said that units will have their special rules present on their datasheets.

We have not seen the Invulnerable Save as part of the Saves profile in AoS or 40k. Likely there's going to be something noting that they get to reroll failed armor saves or they can roll a D6 after suffering a Wound and on a 5+ they ignore the Wound or whatever.

**v0iddrgn**

Does the to Wound roll happen before or after the Damage number is rolled? i.e. do you roll to wound for each point of Damage or only once?