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.

**casvalremdeikun**

My guess is that the Heavy Bolter will be 36' Heavy 3, Str 5, -1 Armor, 1 wound weapon. The Heavy Flamer will be 8"(maybe more?) Assault d6, Str 5, -1 Armor, 1 wound.

Mark my words, a Gravgun is going to be something like 18" Rapid Fire 2, Str 6, Roll Under Armor Save, 2 Wounds or something to that effect.

**JohnnyHell**

kodos wrote:
lascannon with 1-6 damge is the same unreliable gambling as now.
with a lucky 6 the tank is done, with a 1 nothing happens
so cheaper spamable high ROF weapons are still better at killing tanks because of the more reliable damage output

Guard Lascannon teams got a whole lot cooler though, eh? 3 x D6 W caused if they all hit (I know, that lovely 1/8 chance that all of them hit BUT WE CAN DREAM).

**ERJAK**

Desubot wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

Which would be stupid.

Umm, why? Its not a sweeping laser.

Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.

Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.

That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.

Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.

Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.

Take a mixture of weapons and stop min maxing?

besides most people will still have tanks and transportation that those lascannon batteries can do something with.

The issue is if their army is min maxed one way or the other, it doesn't matter if yours is balanced, half of it will be less effective. It could definitely work, it all depends on the interactions between weapons, wounds, armor , toughness etc. My kneejerk is that non-carrying damage is silly but It could work fine.

**Mr Morden**

Mezmerro wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:

Sorry can't do the math...

Wow... Just... wow...
I mean the hell they teach kids in the school these days?

The math would result in EXACTLY THE SAME.

Not been to school for decades - I don;t get how as you only roll for the actual damage after seeing if you save but ok. If you are bored - pm me with how it works.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I echo earlier comments about the flamer. A D6 roll instead of a template? Not for me. We know from real life that flamers are eratic weapons in that they spray all over the place and accuracy is very hard to achieve for obvious reasons. You blanket an area with flame. it's not precision.

Example: You're a guardsman armed with a flamer. 40 Tyranid basic troop things (the name escapes me, my apologies) are running towards you from all directions.

You spray them with flame. Law of averages says that a good deal will be hit. And yet, with the D6 system, you may only hit 1 measly Tyranid...

On the other hand, a single enemy charging the flamer, bobbing, weaving, and zi-zagging, could be hit 6 times...

It doesn't add up for me. Yeah, the lone attacker would still be hit by the template, but at least the template would give more hits on the 40 Tyranids, which would be a lot fairer.

**JohnnyHell**

I heard lasguns give you a positive save modifier :-D :-D :-D

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I echo earlier comments about the flamer. A D6 roll instead of a template? Not for me. We know from real life that flamers are eratic weapons in that they spray all over the place and accuracy is very hard to achieve for obvious reasons. You blanket an area with flame. it's not precision.

Example: You're a guardsman armed with a flamer. 40 Tyranid basic troop things (the name escapes me, my apologies) are running towards you from all directions.

You spray them with flame. Law of averages says that a good deal will be hit. And yet, with the D6 system, you may only hit 1 measly Tyranid...

On the other hand, a single enemy charging the flamer, bobbing, weaving, and zi-zagging, could be hit 6 times...

It doesn't add up for me. Yeah, the lone attacker would still be hit by the template, but at least the template would give more hits on the 40 Tyranids, which would be a lot fairer.

Someone isn't keen on having the new faster Hormagaunts up in his grille, eh? :-D

Edit: it could actually make sense: lone dude gets DOUSED with fuel as he runs up, multiple peeps are harder to get lots of on the fly, but volume of flames might just do it. I'm cool with it.

**Desubot**

ERJAK wrote:

The issue is if their army is min maxed one way or the other, it doesn't matter if yours is balanced, half of it will be less effective. It could definitely work, it all depends on the interactions between weapons, wounds, armor , toughness etc. My kneejerk is that non-carrying damage is silly but It could work fine.

one way or another im excited to see whats going to happen. its not like the current system is any better.

**davou**

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).

You're forgetting that in last eddition, not only could the vehicle be killed in one shot... but it was also likely to lose its weapons or become immobilized rendering it useless. So yes, less change to outright explode, but it would also often just end up stapled to the ground in your deployment zone wishing it had a lascannon instead of a multimelta.

**changemod**

ERJAK wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

Which would be stupid.

Umm, why? Its not a sweeping laser.

Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.

Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.

That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.

Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.

Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.

Sigmar is so simple that everything is good at damaging everything. Sure some things will be damaged more by better rend whilst others will be damaged more by raw number of hits, so there is some level of distinction... But it's not all that granular or varied in that respect.

That's not a criticism, it's a four page core ruleset and simple by design. But they're clearly going for more variation here where shooting an anti-tank round at a single person is a waste of high-end munitions.

**casvalremdeikun**

JohnnyHell wrote:
I heard lasguns give you a positive save modifier :-D :-D :-D

That would be awesome, except it wouldn't make Terminators immune to them, but a Tactical Squad could shrug off lasgun fire fairly easily with a 2+ against a Str 3 weapon.

**ERJAK**

Mr Morden wrote:
Mezmerro wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:

Sorry can't do the math...

Wow... Just... wow...
I mean the hell they teach kids in the school these days?

The math would result in EXACTLY THE SAME.

Not been to school for decades - I don;t get how as you only roll for the actual damage after seeing if you save but ok. If you are bored - pm me with how it works.

Shoot 6 shots of 1 damage against a 4+ save Save 3 take 3 wounds. shoot 3 shots of 2 damage and You'll either do 2 or 4 wounds in a single round of shooting sure, but it averages out to 3.

It's slightly different but over the course of play works out exactly the same; just makes individual saves more dramatic.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kanluwen wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.

But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.

Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?

Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".

Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.

**xerxeshavelock**

I'm sure one of the recent articles said vehicles would have custom damage tables. I wonder how they trigger?

**ERJAK**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
I heard lasguns give you a positive save modifier :-D :-D :-D
That would be awesome, except it wouldn't make Terminators immune to them, but a Tactical Squad could shrug off lasgun fire fairly easily with a 2+ against a Str 3 weapon.

99% 1s always fail. They tried to have 1s not always fail in Sigmar at first...it didn't last long.

**Chopxsticks**

Elbows wrote:
So, one curiosity about the flamer mechanic (perhaps someone from AoS can elaborate).

8" range which is the same as the template and D6 hits which is okay. People will complain about rolling 1's, etc. when face to face with a swarm. However to offset that...if you're within 8" of a single model from a swarm, and roll 6 hits. Will the rest of the unit (technically out of range) take those hits? If so, the flamer just balanced itself out tremendously by spiking its own range through additional hits.

OR...(in AoS at least) do all of the stuck models need to be within the actual 8" range?

PS: I'm also happy to see templates go solely because we can re-introduce proper hand flamers and large flamers (which used to shoot about 4" and like 12" respectively). I hated when they dropped to three templates and shoe-horned every weapon int the game into those three.

From my understanding, The unit takes wounds as a whole no matter the distance they are apart. So if you have a unit of 10 guys all hiding fully behind a wall but one dude is standing out in the open and I target that unit with an attack or spell that specifies Unit and not model, and deal enough wounds, it allocates them across the entire unit killing them all even if they were out of LoS.

I like this system from a hobbyist stand point because it drove me nuts having people drop plastic templates onto my models...And in Warhammer fantasy people would bicker for ever on what was "fully" or "partial" under the template because for some reason there was a difference.

**JohnnyHell**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.

But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.

Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?

Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".

Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.

2/3 times they will. That's often.

**ERJAK**

xerxeshavelock wrote:
I'm sure one of the recent articles said vehicles would have custom damage tables. I wonder how they trigger?

When you take wounds, so lose 2 hp lose an inch of movement, that kinda thing. Except the specifics will probably very different.

**JohnnyHell**

xerxeshavelock wrote:
I'm sure one of the recent articles said vehicles would have custom damage tables. I wonder how they trigger?

From memory of the stream, taking wounds to a threshold can trigger reduced stats or special effects, like moving slower, or fire being less accurate, etc.

**Daedalus81**

Mr Morden wrote:
Mezmerro wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:

Sorry can't do the math...

Wow... Just... wow...
I mean the hell they teach kids in the school these days?

The math would result in EXACTLY THE SAME.

Not been to school for decades - I don;t get how as you only roll for the actual damage after seeing if you save but ok. If you are bored - pm me with how it works.

Note: it *does* matter if you make a save, but since we're working with averages we don't really take that into account.

If you took this equation (3 * 2 * 2) you get 12, right?
If you did it this way (2 * 3 * 2) you still get 12.

What was calculated was the probability of something happening based on the appropriate amount of failed armor saves.

**Desubot**

xerxeshavelock wrote:
I'm sure one of the recent articles said vehicles would have custom damage tables. I wonder how they trigger?

In AOS, there is a table that dictates a big things movements attacks and number of shots based on how many wounds it has.

so say a rhino moves 6"

at 4 wounds say it moves 4"

with the weapons being so rigid i think they may have some of those thresholds remove weapon systems as a whole. or possibly reduce BS.

**SlaveToDorkness**

I'm definitely looking forward to restarting an Ork project I've had on the shelf for two editions.

**DynamicCalories**

JohnnyHell wrote:
xerxeshavelock wrote:
I'm sure one of the recent articles said vehicles would have custom damage tables. I wonder how they trigger?

From memory of the stream, taking wounds to a threshold can trigger reduced stats or special effects, like moving slower, or fire being less accurate, etc.

Take a look at the Kharadron Arkanaut Frigate Damage Table for an Idea on how it might work:

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/arkanaut-frigate_ENG.pdf

**davou**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.

And marines are supposed to be able to take on an entire army of guardsment with three or four tactical squads in drop pods.

And orks are supposed to be able to continue to scrap even with their brain pan pulped.

And nids are supposed to outnumber every other army by 10 orders of magnitude.

And eldar are supposed to be so rare that the death of a single one is a tragedy.

And Etherials are supposed to never see the frontlines.....

Its a game man

**Kanluwen**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.

But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.

Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?

Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".

Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.

Yeah, and per their own fluff repeated hits on the same spot from lasguns can fuse chitin and armor.

So if a squad of Lasguns hit the same target, can we remove points of Movement from people?

Honestly, it seems like you want boltguns to be something bigger or better.

**Jambles**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have no problems with a Chaos cultist, tucked behind a concrete wall, getting a good cover save against a boltgun shot. That's fine in my book.

But in the open? And no armour piercing modifier? GW are basically saying that any old bit of cardboard tucked into your jacket as armour is enough to deflect a boltgun round.

Why should they have an armor piercing modifier?
And is it really so bad that a Guardsman can potentially make a save against boltguns?

Also, while we always refer to it as an "Armor Save"--it's been labeled as "Save" for awhile as the value.
The 5+ might represent a combination of the flak armor and training for Guardsmen. I.e--"When the rounds start flying, duck".

Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.

Lots of stuff is supposed to do lots of stuff in the fluff. Things contradict the fluff in many, many places. Gameplay is more important, frankly.
Think it through. Like for example, boltguns only shoot 24" on the table - a smaller effective range to scale than most modern handguns have. Why no consternation on that fluff disparity?
The fluff is also extremely, extremely inconsistent. One author's boltgun is another author's heavy bolter.

**Daedalus81**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Again, it contradicts years of their own fluff. Bolts are supposed to punch fist sized hits through light armour.

Oh well. I think we'll survive it.

**xerxeshavelock**

Interesting stuff. Thanks all.

Makes me think of a tank crew frantically trying to move from post to post to keep in the fight.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Its a game man

And not a very good one if these new changes are anything to go by.

**Smellingsalts**

ERJAK wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

Which would be stupid.

Umm, why? Its not a sweeping laser.

Game one, you play grey knights Awesome! I can kill all his models in one hit! Game two, you play orcs, well this was fun.

Even creating a balanced list won't let you overcome armies that are inherently one thing or the other.

That said, it could work, it could be perfectly fine, but in Sigmar, which has a very similar profile system, having weapons work this way would destroy the game.

Maybe they'll be moving some of the damage onto the number of shots instead...that could work.

Yeah I think that's what they'll do, having Damage only hit one model but having a much wider variation in the number of shots.

Not quite sure what you mean. In AOS most models that have a tough of 4 have more wounds. If Following the AOS example, each Marine and Ork would have two wounds, so on an average roll, a Lascannon would kill two guys. It wouldn't wipe the whole squad. And I really think they will limit the number of these weapons.

**Daedalus81**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Its a game man

And not a very good one if these new changes are anything to go by.

Glad you're able to judge that based on no games played, no points, and a handful of unit and weapon profiles.