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.

**JohnnyHell**

Latro_ wrote:
Had a thought on Inv saves too. I expect they are gone and will be replaced for stuff like daemons who only had an inv save with an armour save that cannot be modified.

I'd doubt if. Field saves have been invulnerable since time began. Doubt that would change as the fluff-tech behind them hasn't.

**Rippy**

Desubot wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

No, they are radically changing every aspect of the game but leaving points exactly the same forever.

did i miss this?

He is being sarcastic

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insectum7 wrote:
The burning question is: How many Marines can use a grenade against a vehicle in CC?

The burning question is: are there grenades still in the game

**Imateria**

I've had a thought looking at those Flamer stats, I wonder if Pyrovores will be any good now?

**Future War Cultist**

I wonder if invulnerable saves could simply be replaced by better saves. If bloodletters for example had a 3+ despite being naked then they'll be tough without needing extra rules.

**JohnnyHell**

It just doesn't fit the powerfield justification. It would render the Refractor and Conversion fields utterly useless against weapons they'd previously defended against. Which would be super odd.

**kestral**

Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.

**rollawaythestone**

Invulns, if they still exist, will likely be something like "This model always saves on at least a 5+" or something.

**JohnnyHell**

kestral wrote:
Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.

I guess it saves a whole bunch of exceptions, which was the bane of 7th. And exceptions to exceptions. And exceptions to... etc.

**kestral**

One thing to consider is that the to wound table could be considerably different. For example, you might need to double the strength before they need a 6+ to wound. That would change things quite a bit. How would depend on how the rest of the game is designed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would also fit with "everything can kill everything". Done right I might approve if it makes differences in S and T a bit more subtle.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnnyHell wrote:
kestral wrote:
Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.

I guess it saves a whole bunch of exceptions, which was the bane of 7th. And exceptions to exceptions. And exceptions to... etc.

The exceptions to the exceptions was bad game design, not an inherent fault of the basic rules.

**Desubot**

kestral wrote:
Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.

its entirly possible it will be listed under flamer special rules in the weapon section of the book.

old D weapons might also get special rules stating xyz cant be taken against it.

we just dont know yet

**axisofentropy**

For fun I looked up the oldest codices that haven't been updated since 6th edition:

October 2012 - Chaos Space Marines (wow)

March 2013 - Chaos Daemons

January 2014 - Tyranids

April 2014 - Astra Militarum and Tempestus

**Talizvar**

kestral wrote:
One thing to consider is that the to wound table could be considerably different. For example, you might need to double the strength before they need a 6+ to wound. That would change things quite a bit. How would depend on how the rest of the game is designed.

They might have requirements like "roll a 6, then you need to roll again a 4+ to wound" depending on how high that goes or they draw the line at a "no effect".

**endlesswaltz123**

rollawaythestone wrote:
Invulns, if they still exist, will likely be something like "This model always saves on at least a 5+" or something.

They were called unmodifiable saves back in the day. That's exactly how they will work still. They won't effect damage ability, just won't be modified. I am stating that as in they won't be modified negatively...

**Vaktathi**

kestral wrote:
Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.

They may have and just havent shown it yet, that was the only weapon that had a special effect, in previous editions, out of the 3 shown, so they may just not have covered those special rules yet.

**Ruin**

Desubot wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

No, they are radically changing every aspect of the game but leaving points exactly the same forever.

did i miss this?

Spoiler:

**Rippy**

Caught up on the last 12 pages since I went to bed!!

I am loving every change, glad this is being built from the ground up.

Find it hilarious people are complaining about the weapons profiles when we still haven't seen most of the new edition. Even funnier that they are comparing the weapons in the current 7th edition environment!

Ruin wrote:
Desubot wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

No, they are radically changing every aspect of the game but leaving points exactly the same forever.

did i miss this?

Spoiler:

please oh please spoiler tag that.

**Mr Morden**

kestral wrote:
Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.

If cover is a - to hit and not a + to armour then its already covered.

**Backfire**

ERJAK wrote:
Backfire wrote:

However, the point there is that people moan how one-shot kill ruins vehicle lists, yet in 5th edition chance for 1-shot kill was much higher than in 6th or 7th. And it's not like Autocannons were bad in 5th edition - Hydras and Lootas were very much awesome in 5th.
Also, luck tends to even up over the game: I played Tau during 5th edition (Golden Age of Railgun!) and number of times I blew up or immobilized a big vehicle on first shot, only to see my luck turn and roll Shakes and Weapon Destroyed rest of the game and get rolled. It's only in small points games where a player might have just 1 tank where this was an issue.

And really, is it really that much different in 8th? Roll 6 for Lascannon, Dread has 2 wounds left. Most probably it is now either Immobilized or otherwise has its combat capability seriously reduced. Sure it didn't die, but it's not gonna be much use anymore, and can be finished off with Mid or Low strength shooting which in 7th wouldn't have done anything to it. So I am not convinced things actually changed here in practical terms. May be different for Land Raiders which probably has 12 Wounds.

What do you consider 'mid strength'? S6 and S7 shooting was why dreads suck in 7th, not Lascannons. Lascannons were actually a gak way of dealing with dread, melta works much better, and scatter lasers fry em up extra crispy.

You did not read very well, that was the very point I was making. People complain about vehicles getting one-shotted, but that was not a serious balance issue. It was the Hull Points which made vehicles weak in 6th/7th edition.
6th Edition Vehicle rules would have been fine if all the Vehicles were given 1 more Hull point. And of course had not written silly superdurable MC's which should have had vehicle rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
That T7 Dread ain't looking so hot now. Should'a been T8.

And Marines can save against Lascannons. Why?

Maybe it is just indirectly simulating that a Marine is harder to hit than huge big tank...

**axisofentropy**

I went back to Age of Sigmar release history. The release date was announced around June 3rd 2015, then pre-orders didn't happen until a month later: July 4th.

So I think we'll see 8th edition in late May, despite the rumors about vacation freeze in June.

**Daedalus81**

Mr Morden wrote:
kestral wrote:
Don't like that they didn't give flamers some kind of ignore cover ability. If everything can kill everything, and does so in roughly the same way, then some units are ALWAYS better at it, rather than situationally so.

If cover is a - to hit and not a + to armour then its already covered.

Ooh...that would be quite interesting, but then minus to hit affects some armies more than others. I guess that is the case no matter how you cut it. I can't to see this whole thing unfold.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

axisofentropy wrote:
I went back to Age of Sigmar release history. The release date was announced around June 3rd 2015, then pre-orders didn't happen until a month later: July 4th.

So I think we'll see 8th edition in late May, despite the rumors about vacation freeze in June.

Vacation freeze will be when the actual product is out so 2-3 weeks prior to that will be preorders. Late May seems feasible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

You did not read very well, that was the very point I was making. People complain about vehicles getting one-shotted, but that was not a serious balance issue. It was the Hull Points which made vehicles weak in 6th/7th edition.
6th Edition Vehicle rules would have been fine if all the Vehicles were given 1 more Hull point. And of course had not written silly superdurable MC's which should have had vehicle rules.

If vehicles just had the 7th damage table and no hull points AV14 would be practically king of the game. Especially against armies with no AP1 or even little AP2.

**thenewgozoku**

I wonder how they will handle melta bombs and haywire

**Rippy**

thenewgozoku wrote:
I wonder how they will handle melta bombs and haywire

Meltabombs will work similar to lascannons I think, lots of wounds on one model.

Hopefully haywire will go the way of the D.

**Formerly Wu**

Kanluwen wrote:

Points being separate from datasheets won't do diddly if they still have points to begin with.

That is, and always will be, my beef with Matched Play. Bringing points back, officially, was a mistake in my mind.

I'm not a fan of points either, but let's be honest with ourselves. Ours is a minority opinion. Points were coming back.

Anyhow, why the concern about what the points meta is if you're so against points? Open and Narrative are valid ways to play as well. The points meta is only as prevalent as it is because that's tacitly been the only way to play up until now.

I personally look forward to happily ignoring any talk of points come 8th.

**Don Savik**

With the keyword system in place, anti-vehicle stuff could just do special things to units with the vehicle keyword.

Hopefully riptides and stormsurges and wraithknights get the vehicle keyword though. This is GW we're still talking about.

**Desubot**

Rippy wrote:
thenewgozoku wrote:
I wonder how they will handle melta bombs and haywire

Meltabombs will work similar to lascannons I think, lots of wounds on one model.

Hopefully haywire will go the way of the D.

or its just an auto wound to tanks but they get armor or something.

**Kharne the Befriender**

I'm very optimistic about all this news, quite exciting stuff.

I'm just wondering how Gauss will work, maybe a To Wound roll of 6 does D3 damage to vehicles?

**Crimson**

Don Savik wrote:
With the keyword system in place, anti-vehicle stuff could just do special things to units with the vehicle keyword.

Hopefully riptides and stormsurges and wraithknights get the vehicle keyword though. This is GW we're still talking about.

Hell, bikes and Necrons could have 'vehicle' keyword!

**Mr Morden**

thenewgozoku wrote:
I wonder how they will handle melta bombs and haywire

I can't see them bothering with Melta bombs or indeed many grenades unless a special unit has them as primary weapons - I assume each unit will have a primary shooting weapon and then a coupe of special or heavy weapons and then Close combat weapons - doing much more would just be complicated.

Haywire will just be another gun - maybe with a special bonus against vehicles - maybe not.

**Eyjio**

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
I'm very optimistic about all this news, quite exciting stuff.

I'm just wondering how Gauss will work, maybe a To Wound roll of 6 does D3 damage to vehicles?

Considering in the background gauss is meant to be good against all armour, my guess is a roll of six gives an additional AP -1 to the gun or something simple like that. It'd also go a way towards distinguishing heavy gauss cannons from lascannons too, and would be strong, yet reasonably fair for an entire army to have.

It's possible that it'll just add damage on 6's but I'd have thought that's a little too strong generally.

I'm still most interested in what happens to melta/armourbane weapons. I'm sort of hoping 2d6 penetration goes the way of the dodo, but I somehow doubt it...

**axisofentropy**

Daedalus81 wrote:

axisofentropy wrote:
I went back to Age of Sigmar release history. The release date was announced around June 3rd 2015, then pre-orders didn't happen until a month later: July 4th.

So I think we'll see 8th edition in late May, despite the rumors about vacation freeze in June.

Vacation freeze will be when the actual product is out so 2-3 weeks prior to that will be preorders. Late May seems feasible.

that's interesting. what are you basing this upon? Age of Sigmar arrived only a week after pre-orders.