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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

I would just like to see boltguns being effective against light armoured infantry. I'm not expecting them to be able to gun down landraiders with one shot.

 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.

I'm kinda seeing that the most positive stuff was front-loaded in the initial preview and each day more negative stuff comes out.

 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.

Those complaints don't bother me at all. A single model taking more hits from the flamer just seems to represent the flamer covering more of the single model. If the flames grazed him or just hit a limb it would be like taking 1 wound, getting hit more directly so it washes over his whole body would be the effect of taking 6 hits.

Hitting the swarm but only dealing 1 hit would be more like you got one of the models covered but the others were able to dodge out of the way of the brunt of the flames.

It actually used to bother me that getting shot once with lasgun did as much damage to a single model as potentially being completely bathed in flames. The flamethrower should have chances to do more damage to a single model because it could inflict damage on more parts of the body simultaneously.

Smellingsalts 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.

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.

Except we know the Lascannon can only kill one guy, tops. So no limiting needed, and the rules represent what it should be/do.

 Jambles wrote:

 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.

I would quite happily boost a boltgun's range to 30 inches.

Smellingsalts 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.

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.

I started thinking about it in the context of the rules we've seen and with some of the "spillover" type damage being shifted to number of shots. It seems like it should be fine. A little odd but hey, it's a different system and has different needs than sigmar did. Real quick, we've already seen that marines only have 1 wound and i think that they get away with being 'frail' on paper because spillover works differently.

 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.

Go complain somewhere else. Negativity isn't needed.

 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.

Keep in mind that if Bolters have a save modifier it means that Marines would only get a 4+ save against one of the most common infantry weapons in the game. If your view of game quality is that it should match fluff quality maybe having Marines die in droves to baseline weaponry isn't the hill to die on.

 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.

Welcome to a little thing called abstraction!

GW has had issues with the armour save system since time immemorial.

In RT and 2nd Edition, save mods were used and the range was both large in addition to -1 mods being everywhere. Bolters, lasguns, shuricats, you name it. They had a -1 mod. This was bad. Stuff that paid a premium for heavy armour never got the save they paid for, anything with a low save just didn't get a save at all. What was the point of having a save value if you never rolled it? That's bad design!

In 3rd Edition to 7th Edition we went to the AP system. Finally, high armour models got their save against weapons that didn't pierce armour effectively. Sadly AP5-6 was still common enough that most lightly armoured models still never rolled a save unless it was a cover save. So that bit of bad design still existed. But the worse problem? The all-or-nothing nature meant people started packing AP2 weapons 24/7 and simply denied all (non inulnerable) saves. This led to a proliferation of invulnerable saves to compensate (because GW remove any system of modifiers that allowed them to make minor tweaks to survivability). So now against a great many weapons, things that paid a premium for a good save just weren't getting a save at all (as opposed to simply always getting a worse save). Marines that were saving against plasma on a 5+ in 2nd Edition now just died to them outright and everybody and their dog had access to AP2 weaponry in droves.

So modifiers allowed for a gradual approach where things that paid for a good save still got to save, even against devastating attacks, but it basically marginalized low saves (making them pointless bits of fluff). But applying them to widely and to deeply meant that the save printed on the tin was not what you got. With AP, high armour models no longer got modified by crappy small arms but now attacks that were deemed devastating simply ignored the armour they paid for instead of gradually making the save worse.

The bottom line, when using a d6, you can't go overboard with modifiers or you break them. By limiting you range and not applying it willy nilly you can achieve the positive effects of the 2nd/RT mod system while getting the upshots of the AP system. This comes with a sideline bonus of making poor saves meaningful.

In general 40k has been to "and this ignores your save" happy for its own good. Now it can play around more with low-ball saves on lighter infantry. The bottom line is that a game with a d6 randomizer can't be nuanced and varied. Each time you slap a +1 or a -1 somewhere it has a massive effect on the probability. So this means that the system simply isn't fine enough to model the difference in penetration versus autoguns, lasguns, and bolters. And the second you make infantry small arms -1 save or AP5-6 by default you suddenly slice off a chunk of design space in doing so.

End of the day, bolters don't need to defeat armour perfectly, if we want Orks, Nid greeblies, IG, and other lightly armoured things to go down then we can apply no save to them (they're wearing armour but it is useless against the weapons seen on the average battlefield) or we can give them a 6+ save. Now there is a marked difference between a 5+ and 6+ save and the system mechanics can explore that for once instead of everything just glossing over any save worse than a 4+ in most cases.

I'm glad GW bit the bullet and went for a narrower range of mods, applied more sparingly. That is really the best one can hope for when your randomizer is a d6.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I would quite happily boost a boltgun's range to 30 inches.

Yeah, 30 inches wont get you to anywhere near modern effective rifle ranges.

Many modern rifles are effective out to 300-600 meters. A boltgun is effective to less than 40m according to 40k ground scale. Bumping that another six inches is a drop in the bucket. If realism or sticking to the fluff is your concern then bolters (and all other arms in the game) should reach across the average table. But that makes for a bad game with no need for positioning or maneuver. So ground scale is abstracted and crunched down. Every stat in the game is an abstraction or compromise set in place to make for a better game. Some people have just internalized certain abstractions over others.

Daedalus81 wrote:

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

Indeed it does matter, but only for a bell curve spread "smoothness" - the average result, spread width and height would not be affected.
Basically it means to-wound and to-save rolls would be more dramatic.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

Ah Ok I didn't understand that we were assuming that armour save fails. thanks for the explanation - I sorta get it

Its interesting to see GW taking some notes from PP, but imo doing it better.

In Warmachine Hordes,Its hard to remember what I can and cannot do based on what aspect of my HP wheel is gone. I find it un-enjoyable. On the flip side in AoS, I can easily see on my chart, at 5-6 wounds, one of my attacks only has 12" range now instead of its full 18" or my slashing talons only has 4 attacks instead of its base 6

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I would just like to see boltguns being effective against light armoured infantry. I'm not expecting them to be able to gun down landraiders with one shot.

Except you're not arguing that they're "ineffective"--your argument is effectively that Guardsmen should get no armor save period against them.

No. Screw that noise. We had how many editions of "all or nothing"? Build a bridge and get over it.

 Mezmerro wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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 let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.

I said it would be more likely and that the average number of shots required to kill would be fewer, not that it was guaranteed one shotting.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 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.

Those complaints don't bother me at all. A single model taking more hits from the flamer just seems to represent the flamer covering more of the single model. If the flames grazed him or just hit a limb it would be like taking 1 wound, getting hit more directly so it washes over his whole body would be the effect of taking 6 hits.

Hitting the swarm but only dealing 1 hit would be more like you got one of the models covered but the others were able to dodge out of the way of the brunt of the flames.

It actually used to bother me that getting shot once with lasgun did as much damage to a single model as potentially being completely bathed in flames. The flamethrower should have chances to do more damage to a single model because it could inflict damage on more parts of the body simultaneously.

If a single model gets hit by the flamer, then yeah, they should suffer, because flamers are obviously deadly weapons. I'm saying that it shoulder by harder to hit the lone guy than the swarm.

D6+1 hits, or even D6+2 hits against a swarm, a swarm being, say, 10+ models, would be fair.

D3 hits against a lone model, to reflect the difficulty in hitting a lone model, would be fair in my book.

 nintura wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

Well yeah. If you have an anti tank squad shooting anti tank weapons, you can fully expect something to die

Right, but the point is that, in 7E, vehicles were too easy to kill, and it looks like, at least from what we can see so far, they'll be even easier to kill in 8E, which aggravates that issue.

Now, other things may change such that it is not an issue, but if not, vehicles look to be getting a survival decrease not an enhancement.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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 let's see:
Devastator squad would have 4 lascannons
Hitting on 3+ it's 2.6(6) hits
Multilyed on D6 (3.5 average) it's 9.3(3) hits
Wounding on 2+ nets us 7.7(7) wounds
Dread would still get 6+ save after -3 AP to his 3+ so: 6.481 wounds after saves
Doesn't look like a likely one-shot to me.

I said it would be more likely and that the average number of shots required to kill would be fewer, not that it was guaranteed one shotting.

I've never once seen a dreadnought survive more than 3 lascannons or 2 meltas in 7th and I play gooft triple contemptor+venerable lists.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I would just like to see boltguns being effective against light armoured infantry. I'm not expecting them to be able to gun down landraiders with one shot.

Except you're not arguing that they're "ineffective"--your argument is effectively that Guardsmen should get no armor save period against them.

No. Screw that noise. We had how many editions of "all or nothing"? Build a bridge and get over it.

Why should a guardsman, one amongst untold billions of humans, be getting a save against humanity's finest warriors, equipped with the best weapons it can offer?

Cover save? No problem whatsoever.

'Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model.'

Ok, so this I REALLY do like I think it's one of the major things that was missing from the previous edition

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Smellingsalts 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.

OK, maybe I missed that, where did you see stated that a Lascannon can only hit one guy?

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.

Except we know the Lascannon can only kill one guy, tops. So no limiting needed, and the rules represent what it should be/do.

 davou wrote:


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.

That might be fair in some ways, but that was also the argument put forth when HP's were introduced and glances no longer rolled on thr damage table and pen's were made less dangerous, and it didnt actually turn out to be a net boon for vehicles then either. If it's just dead instead of disabled, you're not much further ahead

ok, maybe I missed it, where did you see it stated that a Lascannon can only hit one guy?

On the subject of Cover - one of the odd things about AOS is that if you don;t already have a Armour Save - Cover does not help you.

Wierd but true.

theocracity wrote:

 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.

Keep in mind that if Bolters have a save modifier it means that Marines would only get a 4+ save against one of the most common infantry weapons in the game. If your view of game quality is that it should match fluff quality maybe having Marines die in droves to baseline weaponry isn't the hill to die on.

It was never a problem in the past, because AP5 bolter was never modifying an armour save of 3+ for your marine power armour.

This new system is one they have obviously chosen, but IMO, they have went the wrong way about it.

These images are really interesting. Especially in this new age of GW hiding easter eggs in plain sight. The background shadows indicate a different silhouette for blight drones and there is some sort of beast/large model in the background of another image. Totally interesting.

 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.

And to the ignore list you go!

Your complaints vary from "i don't like this simplificaiton because real life" to "i feel this sci-fi weapon should not work like how it's counterparts work in real life". It is not useful and just noise.

OT: So we go for more of Dawn of War style shootinh huh. A lascannon can just glance a tank doing minimal damage or take half health, most interesting.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I said it would be more likely and that the average number of shots required to kill would be fewer, not that it was guaranteed one shotting.

Well, you're right. but the difference isn't big: 6.17 vs 6.37 lascannon shots at average are needed in new and old rules to kill a dread.

Smellingsalts wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Smellingsalts 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.

OK, maybe I missed that, where did you see stated that a Lascannon can only hit one guy?

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.

Except we know the Lascannon can only kill one guy, tops. So no limiting needed, and the rules represent what it should be/do.

It was a bit jarring to see for a sigmar player because in THAT system having damage not spill over would basically make 200+ model armies mandatory. However, looking at everything else we've seen I've come to the conclusion that it's likely not going to be an issue based on SvT and how much frailer everything is ON PAPER than in Sigmar. I'm chill now, it's all good.

 Mr Morden wrote:
On the subject of Cover - one of the odd things about AOS is that if you don;t already have a Armour Save - Cover does not help you.

Wierd but true.

Well, I cannot remember a single model in 40k that does not at least have a 6+

 Vaktathi wrote:

Right, but the point is that, in 7E, vehicles were too easy to kill, and it looks like, at least from what we can see so far, they'll be even easier to kill in 8E, which aggravates that issue.

Now, other things may change such that it is not an issue, but if not, vehicles look to be getting a survival decrease not an enhancement.

Ima gonna go ahead and make the assumption that vehicles will also gain the benefits of terrain. 3+ saves + 1+ from some bushes are going to make it an EXTREMELY tough cookie to crack against non tank weapons. and the whole thing about tanks dieing so much was because high rate of fire medium str weapons was wrecking them. thats no longer the case.