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.

 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 would still need them against the heavier calibre weapons that we know are out there.

Now if rending and more importantly pseudo rending is also gone - makes life interesting.

Looking forward to seeing what the rend numbers are for Close Combat weapons.

I'm wondering if a large difference in Strength or Toughness will affect the AP.
For instance a Flamer vs a Dreadnought (S vs Tx2) would grant a +1 or +2 AP, improving the Dread's armour save.
Same thing with the Lascannon vs a Space Marine ensuring the Space Marine doesn't get a save.

v0iddrgn wrote:
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?

It would be:
Roll to hit->roll to wound->roll save->roll damage.

At least that's the way in old fantasy, Aos and Destroyer weapons.

 Jambles wrote:

 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.

I think making lascannons more effective against vehicles is a good thing, as said the main issue in 7th was medium strength high rof weapons glancing vehicles to death rather than dedicated anti vehicle weapons penetrating and killing them. Tho that was annoying too.

v0iddrgn wrote:
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?

My money is on roll to wound => roll to save => roll damage.

TonyL707 wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 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.

I think making lascannons more effective against vehicles is a good thing, as said the main issue in 7th was medium strength high rof weapons glancing vehicles to death rather than dedicated anti vehicle weapons penetrating and killing them. Tho that was annoying too.

I agree, that's what I'm saying - I like that lascannons can do lots of anti-vehicle damage, but I'd like to see scatter lasers and the like knocked down a peg this edition as far as killing armor!

Man, I'm loving everything I'm seeing so far. 8th edition looks like a really fun mix of older editions of Warhammer and the good parts of AoS

It's probably just like the Multiple Wounds effect from fantasy (never played AoS, might be there too). The damage would be rolled after the roll to wound and saving throw.

 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.

I'm actually ok with that as long as the rest of the mechanics are balanced to reflect that. The bigger issue IMO with the current ruleset in that scenario is that dreadnoughts were traditionally overpriced when compared with monstrous creature they faced that fulfilled the same roles generally. The dreads cost as much or nearly as much and could be one shotted at worst and at even crippled on average even with glancing hits (in 3rd-6th) whereas a monstrous creature at 1 out of 6 wounds was oblivious to the missing 84% of its health.

As long as dreadnoughts are appropriately priced within this edition in relation to their current survivability (instead of lazily porting over 5th-7th edition points values) then I'm alright with it for me most part. I support the move to standardize the damage system better to get rid of the glaring disparities inherent in the past 17 years of warhammer. I would have preferred though if they kept some "facing" effects though in the game (like a bonus to hit or wound or penalty to save for flanking and rear shots).

 Jambles wrote:

TonyL707 wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 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.

I think making lascannons more effective against vehicles is a good thing, as said the main issue in 7th was medium strength high rof weapons glancing vehicles to death rather than dedicated anti vehicle weapons penetrating and killing them. Tho that was annoying too.

I agree, that's what I'm saying - I like that lascannons can do lots of anti-vehicle damage, but I'd like to see scatter lasers and the like knocked down a peg this edition as far as killing armor!

What's there current AP - I forget? If its not more than AP4 then its no Rend by the looks of it - hopefully pseudo rending has gone too

I dislike the randomness of these weapons, having a single flamer or a single lascannon now means having very unpredictable effect.

In groups it works better, a squad of flamers of Tzeentch would do something like 6d6 hits which'd average out to a lot of damage.

 kodos wrote:

Requizen wrote:

Except that this time the playtesting was done by competitive players and tournament organizers, not a handful of GW people on lunchbreak. It's like you're not even reading the thread.

and we still don't know what exactly was tested and if the suggestions of the testers were considered in the final version

This level of cynicism is awe inspiring. (how is there not a salt "orkmoticon?!)

I am loving those weapon profiles! Everything is how it should be. And not to brag, but it's not too far off my own ideas I put up in the proposed rules section/smug face.

So the humble lasgun is likely to be range 24" rapid fire 1 strength 3 AP - damage 1. Warmly familiar.

This should make interceptors just devastating. I am curious if salvo weapons will have gone away?

changemod wrote:
I dislike the randomness of these weapons, having a single flamer or a single lascannon now means having very unpredictable effect.

In groups it works better, a squad of flamers of Tzeentch would do something like 6d6 hits which'd average out to a lot of damage.

But now everything gets a save against it. Tit for tat and we still need points.

Perhaps. But it does mean no time wasted as a particularly, uh...attentive opponent constantly measuring perfect unit coherency....

So going off the lamer stat i'm assuming smaller blast weapons will be d3 (maybe d6 too?) and larger blast 2d6

changemod wrote:
In groups it works better, a squad of flamers of Tzeentch would do something like 6d6 hits which'd average out to a lot of damage.

Unless they make multi-hit weapons to roll once for entire squad, like they do now for variable-shot weapons.
They can even argue that ti's "for the sake of making the game quicker"

I hate to rain on this parade, but those weapon profiles are bizarre to say the least.

They're not even consistent with their own fluff.

Bolters are supposed to fire exploding bolts, but not even a hint of armour piercing? Thus invalidating years of fluff!

So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...

And yeah, the flamer rules have remained static over the years i.e hitting automatically with a template or this new rule, but where's the element of chance? The 1 in 100 instance when the flamer might explode?

And the lascannon is equally bizarre. -3 armour save suggests a slim chance of actually surviving something that is capable of punching through ceramide armour? Terminators getting an invulnerable save? I can buy that, but again, it contradicts their own fluff of a high energy bolt blasting through things.

In reality, anti-tank weapons are capable of destroying tanks with one hit. Is that still possible in this new edition? I don't know...

Very strange decisions made by GW here.

 Latro_ wrote:
So going off the lamer stat i'm assuming smaller blast weapons will be d3 (maybe d6 too?) and larger blast 2d6

Not necessarily. You have to account that range and auto-hit is a factor and D6 may be sufficient for a large blast.

 DarkBlack wrote:
This level of cynicism is awe inspiring. (how is there not a salt "orkmoticon?!)

And yet it pales in comparison to the precipitating greed at GW and the zeal with which some in the community defended it that got us to this point. Cause and effect, Dark. GW has to prove they've done better to folks who refused to drink the Kool Aid anymore. They're admittedly trying but it's not a quick process for those of who didn't queue up with cup in hand months ago.


I do agree though there should absolutely be a salt orkmoticon.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I hate to rain on this parade, but those weapon profiles are bizarre to say the least.

They're not even consistent with their own fluff.

Bolters are supposed to fire exploding bolts, but not even a hint of armour piercing? Thus invalidating years of fluff!

So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...

And yeah, the flamer rules have remained static over the years i.e hitting automatically with a template or this new rule, but where's the element of chance? The 1 in 100 instance when the flamer might explode?

And the lascannon is equally bizarre. -3 armour save suggests a slim chance of actually surviving something that is capable of punching through ceramide armour? Terminators getting an invulnerable save? I can buy that, but again, it contradicts their own fluff of a high energy bolt blasting through things.

In reality, anti-tank weapons are capable of destroying tanks with one hit. Is that still possible in this new edition? I don't know...

Very strange decisions made by GW here.

Exploding =\= armor piercing

"Realistically" flakk armor would be great against something that explodes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

So your basic guardsman in flak armour is getting a save against an exploding bolt? Right...

Assuming guardsmen still have a 5+ save... #New40k is new

 warboss wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
This level of cynicism is awe inspiring. (how is there not a salt "orkmoticon?!)

And yet it pales in comparison to the precipitating greed at GW and the zeal with which some in the community defended it that got us to this point. Cause and effect, Dark. GW has to prove they've done better to folks who refused to drink the Kool Aid anymore. They're admittedly trying but it's not a quick process for those of who didn't queue up with cup in hand months ago.


I do agree though there should absolutely be a salt orkmoticon.

A few years ago? Sure. Otherwise you just haven't been paying attention and giving credit where credit it due.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Exploding =\= armor piercing

"Realistically" flakk armor would be great against something that explodes.

APHE (Armor Piercing High Explosive) warheads are a thing you know, so it would depend on the ammo.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In reality, anti-tank weapons are capable of destroying tanks with one hit. Is that still possible in this new edition? I don't know...

It's not, and that's the point. The chance of being on-shot instantly is what kept vehicles undepowered compared to monsters for the last two editions.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


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

6+ save.

Likely to be 5+ or 4+ against weaker and more common AT weapons such as Krak Missiles or Autocannons though (and probably umodified 3+ against e.g. heavy bolters or multilasers), which is still a serious buff even before taking the need to wound against T7 first into account. Also spells good news for Bjorn who is likely to get his current 5+ inv. save improved with something else.

For those people confused about the wounds and D6 "damage" for lascannons and fearing they might be a great squadwipe weapon against MEQ, I'm pretty sure it will work like this in game:

Hit? YES -> Successful wounding roll based on number of hits (e.g. 1 hit = 1 potential affected model against an infantry squad, which is the case for the Heavy 1 Lascannon) -> the model that has the successful lascannon wound makes it's armour save -> If the save fails D6 'life points' (the wounds a model has in its statline) are lost as 'damage' for that model.

So no D6 wounds for the entire squad. Instead if the lascannon shot against a Terminator squad hits, wounds and the affected Termi fails his 5+ armour save, it has a 1 in 5 chance to survive, otherwise it dies as both 'life points, no other models are affected.

I wonder what the railgun is going to look like.

Personally, I favor heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.

 Latro_ wrote:
So going off the lamer stat i'm assuming smaller blast weapons will be d3 (maybe d6 too?) and larger blast 2d6

Isn't that pretty much how Bolt Action V1 did it before they went to templates?

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I wonder what the railgun is going to look like.

Personally, I favour heavy weapons being able to kill multiple models. There is zero reason for why a hyper velocity railgun slug should expend all its energy obliterating a single guardsmen.

Cos he really really needed to die - come one we have all had days like that.....