ERJAK wrote:

 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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

 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.

 Mezmerro wrote:

 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:
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

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 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.

As much as I bagged on 6E and 7E for making vehicles way too easy to kill, even in 7E an AV12 Dread should require two or three times as many shots to kill as your experience posits. 3 BS4 lascannons should on average inflict 1 HP, and have a 1/6 combined chance to explode a dread. If you have never seen a Dread survive more shots than that, I would posit that your experience is dramatically, radically, outside statistical norm.

ERJAK wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

Ap was straight up terrible. It made armor completely binary and was just a terrible design space to work in. It's the reason invulnerable saves became so prevelant which in turn created D weapons. Rend is better for the game. even if it is more abstract.

 Ronin_eX 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.

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.

Tyran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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

The difference now is what it is good at killing vehicles. In 7th edition Lascannons are borderline useless while S6 spam glances vehicles to death. New Lascannons will be very effective against vehicles while S6 spam will be far less effective (because far more wounds and a save).

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

 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+

Repentia
Acro-flagellants
Assassins
Jokaero
Daemonhost

theocracity wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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

The difference now is what it is good at killing vehicles. In 7th edition Lascannons are borderline useless while S6 spam glances vehicles to death. New Lascannons will be very effective against vehicles while S6 spam will be far less effective (because far more wounds and a save).

I think that's an important point. Lascannons may be just as deadly to vehicles as before, but at least it incentivizes people to actually bring lascannons instead of generalist midrange weaponary.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

Ap was straight up terrible. It made armor completely binary and was just a terrible design space to work in. It's the reason invulnerable saves became so prevelant which in turn created D weapons. Rend is better for the game. even if it is more abstract.

Exactly this. This should reduce the number of subsystems present in the game. I do hope invulnerable saves exist in the form of the ability to reroll failed saves of 1 (5++), 1 and 2 (4++), and 1 2 and 3 (3++).

 JohnnyHell wrote:
D6 system's lack of granularity has been with us for 30 years now! Same issues, same super randomness. But we just... can't... give it up!

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


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.

I don't think I can even tell what you want or prefer here. I'm personally pretty excited about all the changes and much prefer the new saves and modifiers system. All or nothing was dumb. Why was a missile substantially more effective against a crisis suit than a riptide? Is that the system that you preferred or made more sense to you? Should a tactical doing jumpjacks on a hill be just as easy to kill with a boltgun as one hunkered down behind a wall? Those are the weird things that were happening in the previous system.

ERJAK wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

 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+

Repentia
Acro-flagellants
Assassins
Jokaero
Daemonhost

This is only relevant if they keep that rule in 40k and if those models still don't get a save lol.

 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.

 Desubot wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

Ap was straight up terrible. It made armor completely binary and was just a terrible design space to work in. It's the reason invulnerable saves became so prevelant which in turn created D weapons. Rend is better for the game. even if it is more abstract.

Exactly this. This should reduce the number of subsystems present in the game. I do hope invulnerable saves exist in the form of the ability to reroll failed saves of 1 (5++), 1 and 2 (4++), and 1 2 and 3 (3++).

Hoping for some flavor of ward save or possibly even a rending cap. so terminators can never be worse than a 5+

10penceman wrote:
looking at some weapon profiles flamer, bolt gun and lascannon

I dont see a huge problem with it but i have a question the lascannon does d6 damage so if i hit a unit does it do d6 damage to the unit or just one guy in said unit ?

ERJAK wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 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.

As much as I bagged on 6E and 7E for making vehicles way too easy to kill, even in 7E an AV12 Dread should require two or three times as many shots to kill as your experience posits. 3 BS4 lascannons should on average inflict 1 HP, and have a 1/6 combined chance to explode a dread. If you have never seen a Dread survive more shots than that, I would posit that your experience is dramatically, radically, outside statistical norm.

well yeah, but here's the thing, the statistical norm isn't what you're dealing with, you're dealing with player experience. When a dread can explode instantly to a single shot you remember that way more often then you remember a group of lascannons plinking off 1 HP. The reason the new system is better is because you don't have players shying away from the model as much. It still take about 7 shots to kill a dread from a lascannon sure, but the fact that it CAN'T be one and done means people feel better about the model. It's actually especially important for competitive players because eliminating 'it blows up turn one to a lucky hit' is a big part of creating a tournament list. It's just a better system now.

 Mezmerro wrote:

 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+

10penceman wrote:
looking at some weapon profiles flamer, bolt gun and lascannon

I dont see a huge problem with it but i have a question the lascannon does d6 damage so if i hit a unit does it do d6 damage to the unit or just one guy in said unit ?