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.

**Howscat**

As a scion player this makes me wonder about my Hot-shot Lasguns. Will they be S3 AP-2 or S4 AP- like in shadow war.

**MasterSlowPoke**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
D-Scythes.

I'm not crying.

You're crying!

I'm going to guess that D-Scythes are 8", Assault D6, S4, AP -5, D1, Autohit

**paqman**

Gimgamgoo wrote:
macluvin wrote:
So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.

I think to summarise, we had;

AoS Sucks
AoS is awesome
New 40k will be like AoS
New 40k won't be like AoS
New 40k has been playtested extensively
New 40k hasn't been playtested extensively
Land Raiders can be killed by Lasguns
Land Raiders shouldn't be killed by Lasguns
Lots of crying
My precious painted models shouldn't die
I like killing people's precious painted models
Giant Sace Marines are awesome and real
Giant Space Marine pics are fake
AoS still sucks
AoS is still awesome

Did I miss anything?

I'm glad the OP was updated with the video info. Thanks for whoever did that.

How long till GW release 40k? I'm tiring of the panto already. :-(

Yeah, the Ubiquitous "No one's forcing you to buy 8th edition" comment.
As if someone will stick to 7th while the majority of the people switches to 8th.

**Tyran**

BrotherGecko wrote:
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.

There is one, it over-penetrates the guardsmen. True there is the chance that it can kill more guardsmen if they are conveniently placed in a line, but what kind of idiot does that in warfare?

**Mezmerro**

DarkBlack wrote:

This level of cynicism is awe inspiring.

It's born from experience.
GW's dickery had trained us well

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Mezmerro wrote:
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.

That's the risk tanks take on the battlefield and why they usually have infantry with them.

If tanks are not effective in 40k, then the blame for that should be placed at the door of the game designers.

**Vaktathi**

Mr Morden wrote:

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

well, it'd be a 6+ against a Lascannon with a 3+ base save and a -3 ASM. The one shotting thing is good, but it'll be a lot easier to drop with a single salvo from multiple weapons like a Lascannon pred or Devastators.

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

Yeah, there's a lot we still need to see the details for, but from what we've seen so far, at least from the framework of existing rules, there's potential for some concern.

Jambles wrote:

Does this math account for things like extra hullpoints sustained from repeated results and such?

no, but those are relatively more minor, really only occurring from repeated immobilizations with more than 1 remaining hull point anyway, so, while not irrelevant, it wont change the math in any meaningful way.

And is it 1/18 including the roll to-hit?

Aye.

I never lost dreadnoughts to lascannons anyways - I'd like to see the math for autocannons and other s7 spam.

unfortunately without seeing the new ASM and Dmg values, we cant really do a comparison yet (unless they showed it somewhere I missed), but in 7E a Dread will require an average of 13.5 (round to 14) BS4 shots to kill.

**davou**

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.

because those people have invested a ton of time and money into the game. Whether its bad or not, they will keep running the cons as long as people show up.

Tournament players are VERY critical of the rules; in fact they're the ones that go over them with a fine toothed comb looking for the things that arent working as intended or are mildly broke

**nintura**

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 I'd be ok with that actually. Not being able to be one shot, but still getting armor saves, even if more fragile. Seems good to me. I wonder how Leviathans will work now.

**v0iddrgn**

So, it's an All or Nothing approach to wounding with multi-Damage weapons. I'm just running through the scenario's in my head where the SM Captain gets hit by a couple of Lascannon's and he saves against one that rolled up 6 points of damage and suffers the wounds against the one that rolled up 2 points of damage. It begs the question how Eternal Warrior could play into that scenario... maybe the Capt with EW will get to save each point of damage separately???

**changemod**

Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

My main point is that if you say, have a tactical squad with a flamer and a lascannon, then the effectiveness is going to be highly randomised. You can park your rhino, disembark within one inch of a Hormogaunt swarm and score... 1 flamer hit. You can fire a lascannon at a dreadnought and either chip off a wound or cripple it, not depending on getting a pen first then rolling vehicle damage, but straight away.

Basic weaponry really should perform fairly consistently.

**Desubot**

Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

Heh just thought that too, flakk armor was designed to protect against shrapnel though really does bolts even cause shrapnel? i think ultimately it doesn't matter for the game. that and adding in the supposed cover save mechanics, things are going to get to live longer to do fun stuff like CC

**Lord Kragan**

SeanDrake wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
Gimgamgoo wrote:
macluvin wrote:
So did anything useful come up over 72 pages of comments besides all the arguing and bickering about how 8th Edition is going to either be AoS or not and why that either sucks or rocks? i read 2 pages and feel like thats 99 percent of what i got.

I think to summarise, we had;

AoS Sucks
AoS is awesome
New 40k will be like AoS
New 40k won't be like AoS
New 40k has been playtested extensively
New 40k hasn't been playtested extensively
Land Raiders can be killed by Lasguns
Land Raiders shouldn't be killed by Lasguns
Lots of crying
My precious painted models shouldn't die
I like killing people's precious painted models
Giant Sace Marines are awesome and real
Giant Space Marine pics are fake
AoS still sucks
AoS is still awesome

Did I miss anything?

I'm glad the OP was updated with the video info. Thanks for whoever did that.

How long till GW release 40k? I'm tiring of the panto already. :-(

You missed people pointing out that GW will/may ignore the playtesting or the contrary. As an aside, I'll say you're not the only one by a long shot.

Well do us all a favour and stop reading it, I promise if anyone is critical of AoS I will just imagine you popping up to say they have never played it will save you a lot of time.

.

Aren't you the charming fella, I guess I'll leave it at that, though I'd like you did the favour since there's a few more individuals filling your role and better.

**BrotherGecko**

Tyran wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
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.

There is one, it over-penetrates the guardsmen. True there is the chance that it can kill more guardsmen if they are conveniently placed in a line, but what kind of idiot does that in warfare?

Just shoot the ground next to the guardsmen

hyper velocity is no joke.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Latro_ wrote:
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

The imperium might be a lot of things, but guardsman are not going to go into combat naked! They will have basic armour of some kind.

For as long as I've been in the hobby, it's been set in stone that bolters and exploding bolts were good at taking out lightly armoured chaos cultists, guardsmen, and Ork flak armour etc etc

Bolters struggled slightly against Orks due to their toughness of 4, but that was never an issue, as that was the Ork background and physiology.

**Rinkydink**

All looking good for the new edition. Stats are looking excellent. Wyches actually have a save now, same as Orks. Cover hopefully will improve that save as well.

The key on the damage stat for larger weapons is whether it affects a model or unit. Hopefully, no grey areas on the explanations.

**Lord Kragan**

Elbows wrote:
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.

I may be remembering wrong, with my having spent almost a year without playing, but haven't they been always range 48''?

**xerxeshavelock**

I'm going to predict:

Crack Missile -2 armour save d3 dmg
Autocannon -2 1 dmg
Heavy Bolter -1 1 dmg
Railgun -4 d6+2 dmg
Gauss rifle -1
Pulse Rifle no save mod

I'm just wondering if there will be a rending mechanic in there somewhere.

Edit:Battlecannon -3 d6 Maybe -2 to give the Lascannon some room, but that might make it a bit to ineffective against a squad of Marines in the open.

**NivlacSupreme**

Bolts don't just explode. They're designed to penetrate the target and then go off.

**warboss**

v0iddrgn wrote:
So, it's an All or Nothing approach to wounding with multi-Damage weapons. I'm just running through the scenario's in my head where the SM Captain gets hit by a couple of Lascannon's and he saves against one that rolled up 6 points of damage and suffers the wounds against the one that rolled up 2 points of damage. It begs the question how Eternal Warrior could play into that scenario... maybe the Capt with EW will get to save each point of damage separately???

Or automatically reduce multiwounds to just one. Or have a staggered hierarchy of Eternal Warrior like EW1 that reduces it to 1 wound EW2 reducing it to 2 wounds if more, etc. Or just get rid of EW completely with the new ruleset. The options are completely open. I don't know though if there is even an AOS equivalent to EW to compare it to (nor do we have any guarantees that it would port over if there is one).

**Rinkydink**

I wonder what the plasma stats would be like?

I've love to see the two modes for plasma cannons back.

**Slayer-Fan123**

I didn't see anything about Rapid Fire not allowing Charges unless Relentless, so it technically could be a buff for Marines as they're finally able to make use of those melee stats.

**Daedalus81**

changemod wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

My main point is that if you say, have a tactical squad with a flamer and a lascannon, then the effectiveness is going to be highly randomised. You can park your rhino, disembark within one inch of a Hormogaunt swarm and score... 1 flamer hit. You can fire a lascannon at a dreadnought and either chip off a wound or cripple it, not depending on getting a pen first then rolling vehicle damage, but straight away.

Basic weaponry really should perform fairly consistently.

We can always worry about the edge cases, but we should be thinking in terms of averages. Keep in mind as well that the dreadnoughts effectiveness will decrease with wounds. A couple good shots with lascannons may make it worth focusing on something else and "letting the lasguns finish it off".

**Vaktathi**

nintura 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.

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 I'd be ok with that actually. Not being able to be one shot, but still getting armor saves, even if more fragile. Seems good to me. I wonder how Leviathans will work now.

well, I think there is an overfocus on the one shot. A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.

Now, other changes may balance that out, but if costs and weapons access remains roughly the same, then these units are going to be even worse off potentially.

**Crimson**

BrotherGecko wrote:
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.

No, this helps to differentiate weapons. Some are better against single targets while others are better against units.

**MasterSlowPoke**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Latro_ wrote:
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

The imperium might be a lot of things, but guardsman are not going to go into combat naked! They will have basic armour of some kind.

For as long as I've been in the hobby, it's been set in stone that bolters and exploding bolts were good at taking out lightly armoured chaos cultists, guardsmen, and Ork flak armour etc etc

Bolters struggled slightly against Orks due to their toughness of 4, but that was never an issue, as that was the Ork background and physiology.

The system just isn't granular enough to really justify giving them AP -1. If a Lascannon is -3, that leaves Missile Launcher equivalents at -2 and Heavy Bolters/Autocannons at -1. If Bolters were -1, then that leaves everything stronger than a strong small arms weapon and weaker than a directed energy blast at -2.

**Ragnar Blackmane**

Tyran wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
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.

There is one, it over-penetrates the guardsmen. True there is the chance that it can kill more guardsmen if they are conveniently placed in a line, but what kind of idiot does that in warfare?

Also why would one ever take weapons specialized for killing heavy infantry like plasma cannons when a lascannon would be indefinitely better at taking out vehicles and could still inflict D6 wounds on MEQ/TEQ without having whatever handicap they are going to replace plasma meltdowns with?

Contradicts with the intended balance of Lascannons being great against singular targets but inefficient against infantry squads (besides TEQ) as stated in the developer info.

**Daedalus81**

Vaktathi wrote:
well, I think there is an overfocus on the one shot. A single lascannon from a tac squad wont have that ability, but a unit with multiple heavy weapons will have a far easier time killing such a vehicle with a single salvo, and the save wont make up for it. Thats my concern. Vehicles are already fragile and, at least looking at the Dread, it doesnt look to be getting hardier in any way (beyond the small chance for a single heavy weapon to one shot something), less so actually.

Now, other changes may balance that out, but if costs and weapons access remains roughly the same, then these units are going to be even worse off potentially.

I think we need a refocus here. Anti-tank weapons should be good at hurting big things. It's the middle range weapons that should get nerfed against a dreadnought.

**xerxeshavelock**

Don't forget Cover is rumoured to have positive modifiers, so a Dread in a building may have a 2+ (or even better) save.

**Vryce**

v0iddrgn wrote:
So, it's an All or Nothing approach to wounding with multi-Damage weapons. I'm just running through the scenario's in my head where the SM Captain gets hit by a couple of Lascannon's and he saves against one that rolled up 6 points of damage and suffers the wounds against the one that rolled up 2 points of damage. It begs the question how Eternal Warrior could play into that scenario... maybe the Capt with EW will get to save each point of damage separately???

Or maybe EW halves damage from multi-wound effects. Said SM Captain fails his (probably 5+ Sv vs. lascannon), lascannon rolls a 6 for damage. EW lets you halve that for only 3 wounds inflicted.