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.

 MacPhail wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Not having read the whole thread

In the same spirit, I can't keep up with the posting rate and I've missed some leaked details. I know what's in the FAQ and on the community page. Is someone (Dakka, BoLS, B&C, etc.) compiling blurry photos of half-pages with somebody's thumb over the important table? I'd love to see them all in one place without weeding through pages of alternating bitterness and giddiness.

We don't yet have any real leaks or blurry photos, only GW statements. Follow Atia's blog it's probably the best now, I haven't seen anything important in this thread that's not there: https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... If flamers hit automatically, will high strength flamers be the best anti-aircraft weapon in the game? That just seems wrong on so many levels.

Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.

A Lascannon will hit one model and deal d6 wounds to it. A flamer will hit d6 models and deal 1 wound to each.

Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

mhsellwood wrote:
Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.

You just misread everything I said.

Orks don't have flamers. They have Burners. It's a different weapon, it has different rules. The Heldrake doesn't have a flamer. It has a "Baleflamer" (if that's what it's called). It's a different weapon, it has different rules.

What I'm talking about is having two units with a 'Flamer' where the flamers are different. Or perhaps the 'Burner' that a Boyz Kommando unit gets is different to a 'Burner' that a Burner Boyz unit can get, despite being both called 'Burners'. Or two units with a 'Baleflamer', yet the Baleflamers on each have different rules despite looking like the same gun.

Or two Lascannons having different rules. Or two bolters. Or two Pulse Rifles. Or two Volcano cannons. And so on and so on.

Get it?

If all you're worried about is the names, then don't. In AoS weapons with different rules always have different names.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.

How do you know this?

 Mymearan wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.

A Lascannon will hit one model and deal d6 wounds to it. A flamer will hit d6 models and deal 1 wound to each.

Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.

That may come from the description on the community site that says "...the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."

It seems to imply that its damage would only ever apply to one model.

I agree with you that this is NOT how AoS handles damage. But then, this is 40k and we've not seen the full rules on how things like Heavy 1 (does that mean its damage can affect only 1 model?) work.

 privateer4hire wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.

A Lascannon will hit one model and deal d6 wounds to it. A flamer will hit d6 models and deal 1 wound to each.

Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.

That may come from the description on the community site that says "...the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."

It seems to imply that its damage would only ever apply to one model.

I agree with you that this is NOT how AoS handles damage. But then, this is 40k and we've not seen the full rules on how things like Heavy 1 (does that mean its damage can affect only 1 model?) work.

If wound allocation has you assign hits, then determine # of wounds, followed by rolling to wound, then flamers could assign d6 hits to 1-d6 model(s), and a lascannon can only ever do d6 wounds to 1 model.

We have no idea until we see the rules for sure.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

mhsellwood wrote:
Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.

You just misread everything I said.

Orks don't have flamers. They have Burners. It's a different weapon, it has different rules. The Heldrake doesn't have a flamer. It has a "Baleflamer" (if that's what it's called). It's a different weapon, it has different rules.

What I'm talking about is having two units with a 'Flamer' where the flamers are different. Or perhaps the 'Burner' that a Boyz Kommando unit gets is different to a 'Burner' that a Burner Boyz unit can get, despite being both called 'Burners'. Or two units with a 'Baleflamer', yet the Baleflamers on each have different rules despite looking like the same gun.

Or two Lascannons having different rules. Or two bolters. Or two Pulse Rifles. Or two Volcano cannons. And so on and so on.

Get it?

Ok. So you are just assuming the worst case scenario, being that two flamers will be named exactly the same but have completely different rules (although I note that you have chosen to ignore that in 7th you do have cases of flamers being different depending on who is carrying them).

But even assuming that, worst case scenario is what? I have space marine veterans and they carry a flamer that hits at strength 4, and tactical marines have one that hits at strength 3? So, the brain space required is... remembering if I have veterans they hit harder than tactical marines . On the other hand AoS rules suggest the more likely result is that weapons called flamers all act the same, and ones that are similar but different are named different things, like (say) burners might be similar to other flame weapons but different.

I guess for me I look at what has been done in AoS, see the similarities in the new Warhammer 40K, and use that to inform my speculation.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Here's what concerns me about those weapon stats:

"Bespoke rules"

So are bolters going to differ from army to army? From unit to unit? Those are the Flamer rules, but are they the Flamer rules, or the Adeptus Astartes Tactical Squad Flamer rules? Is a unit going to have a Flamer that's called a Flamer, but it does D6+1 hits because of some bespoke rule the unit has?

The less you centralise (like an armoury), the more things you have with the same name but different rules.

Could be a simple armory and then units like Rubrics could have a bespoke rule that their boltguns and flamers have rend of 1. The weapons will probably be on the scroll anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I think psykers will have their powers, what they do and how/when they are cast on their data cards, and that'll be that.

Oh god please no.

The fact their is still a S. Vs. T. Mechanic kinda suggests to me well influenced by AoS they will not be taking it as far.

Also even I'm AoS they are bringing back magic lore for armies up top on unit spefic powers. It seems clear gw gets most fans like having a list of powers to choose from.

Also on the bespoke rules thing. The idea in AoS is generally small unit special rules that give bonuses to help it in its combat role/play style. It's not a war gear thing. Like with chaos warriors a chaos rune shield mostly does the same thing no matter the unit. Same with a marauder shield.

 privateer4hire wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:


Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.

That may come from the description on the community site that says "...the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."

It seems to imply that its damage would only ever apply to one model.

More directly, it comes from this sentence:

Warhammer Community wrote:Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model.

mhsellwood wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

mhsellwood wrote:
Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.

You just misread everything I said.

Orks don't have flamers. They have Burners. It's a different weapon, it has different rules. The Heldrake doesn't have a flamer. It has a "Baleflamer" (if that's what it's called). It's a different weapon, it has different rules.

What I'm talking about is having two units with a 'Flamer' where the flamers are different. Or perhaps the 'Burner' that a Boyz Kommando unit gets is different to a 'Burner' that a Burner Boyz unit can get, despite being both called 'Burners'. Or two units with a 'Baleflamer', yet the Baleflamers on each have different rules despite looking like the same gun.

Or two Lascannons having different rules. Or two bolters. Or two Pulse Rifles. Or two Volcano cannons. And so on and so on.

Get it?

Ok. So you are just assuming the worst case scenario, being that two flamers will be named exactly the same but have completely different rules (although I note that you have chosen to ignore that in 7th you do have cases of flamers being different depending on who is carrying them).

But even assuming that, worst case scenario is what? I have space marine veterans and they carry a flamer that hits at strength 4, and tactical marines have one that hits at strength 3? So, the brain space required is... remembering if I have veterans they hit harder than tactical marines . On the other hand AoS rules suggest the more likely result is that weapons called flamers all act the same, and ones that are similar but different are named different things, like (say) burners might be similar to other flame weapons but different.

I guess for me I look at what has been done in AoS, see the similarities in the new Warhammer 40K, and use that to inform my speculation.

Astra militarum flamer = s3
Space marine flamer =s4
Salamanders space marine flamer =s5

3 different profiles with 3 different names for the same weapon, job done.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.

How do you know this?

I haven't seen anything that states that (and I've read most of this 90 page monstrosity!), so I think it's a guess. Not a bad one IMHO, as it would replicate the "can't be hit by templates" mechanic quite neatly.

Another option would be to use the old Apocalypse rule, where you had to subtract 12" from the weapon range when firing at fliers, which I always liked as being quite fluffy as well as sensible.

 Jadenim wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.

How do you know this?

I haven't seen anything that states that (and I've read most of this 90 page monstrosity!), so I think it's a guess. Not a bad one IMHO, as it would replicate the "can't be hit by templates" mechanic quite neatly.

Another option would be to use the old Apocalypse rule, where you had to subtract 12" from the weapon range when firing at fliers, which I always liked as being quite fluffy as well as sensible.

I have to admit that I also liked the "Add 12 inches to the distance" that the old FW fliers used to have. It actually made sense and was easy to figure out.

Some people are talking about the new faction being Rak'gol, but I have a brand new salt shaker.
Fascinating idea regardless - could be the ogre equivalent for 40k.
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Rak%27Gol

Neronoxx wrote:
Some people are talking about the new faction being Rak'gol, but I have a brand new salt shaker.
Fascinating idea regardless - could be the ogre equivalent for 40k.
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Rak%27Gol

where do you read the rumor?

 Jadenim wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.

How do you know this?

I haven't seen anything that states that (and I've read most of this 90 page monstrosity!), so I think it's a guess. Not a bad one IMHO, as it would replicate the "can't be hit by templates" mechanic quite neatly.

Another option would be to use the old Apocalypse rule, where you had to subtract 12" from the weapon range when firing at fliers, which I always liked as being quite fluffy as well as sensible.

So it was an a**pull you tried to pass off as fact. People hated that flyers were basically playing a different game in 7th and I doubt they'll have any particular rules about who can shoot what for them in 8th. Plenty of things fly in sigmar, but they still get punched like anything else.

Are they Chaos? I'm impressed anyway.

IIRC the Rak'gol are a FFG creation, from Rogue Trader if memory serves me.

Yes, by FFG. While I agree this would be a good thing it is hardly a rumor yet. Is there any source?

People have been hoping Rak'gol, that is not a rumour

FFG RPG creation. It's (probably) not going to happen.

Could be a re-imagining of the squ....{REDACTED]...

I really doubt we'd get the Rak'gol. I mean yeah, it'd be awesome.

mhsellwood wrote:
Ok. So you are just assuming the worst case scenario...

Again, 8th time they've tried to get 40K right. Their track record ain't great. Give me a reason why I should believe that this time it'll be different?

mhsellwood wrote:
... being that two flamers will be named exactly the same but have completely different rules (although I note that you have chosen to ignore that in 7th you do have cases of flamers being different depending on who is carrying them).

What are those examples? Even so, my point still stands. It's a bad way to write rules.

mhsellwood wrote:
So, the brain space required is... remembering if I have veterans they hit harder than tactical marines.

You shouldn't be required to fill 'brain space' with the notion that two things that are the same somehow have different rules. It's bad design.

mhsellwood wrote:
On the other hand AoS rules suggest the more likely result is that weapons called flamers all act the same, and ones that are similar but different are named different things, like (say) burners might be similar to other flame weapons but different.

That's fine. I mean we have that now, flamer vs burner vs Hellhound vs etc.

mhsellwood wrote:
I guess for me I look at what has been done in AoS, see the similarities in the new Warhammer 40K, and use that to inform my speculation.

Wasn't the example given that there are units in AoS that have 'Shields' that do one thing, and then others that also have 'Shields', but these shields do something different?

Wasn't the example given that there are units in AoS that have 'Shields' that do one thing, and then others that also have 'Shields', but these shields do something different?

Not quite - a unit might have "Tomb Shields" or "Fang Shields" or whatever that do slightly different things.

If they make cards (or people use home made ones) then its incredibly simple to check rules - just have a quick look at the card. It works in many other games very well.

FAR Far better than thumbing through various codexes or God forbid trying to scroll through pages on someone's phone that no one can quite see and then the owner gives up because he can't find it

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

mhsellwood wrote:
Have you played 7th edition? Because it is already the case that flamers are not the same from army to army. Salamander flamers are not the same as other Space Marine flamers, and Ork flamers are different, and in 30K Death Guard flamers are different, and Thousand Son flamers are different, and the Pyrovore flamer is different, and the Heldrakes Baleflamer is different to any other flamer.

You just misread everything I said.

Orks don't have flamers. They have Burners. It's a different weapon, it has different rules. The Heldrake doesn't have a flamer. It has a "Baleflamer" (if that's what it's called). It's a different weapon, it has different rules.

What I'm talking about is having two units with a 'Flamer' where the flamers are different. Or perhaps the 'Burner' that a Boyz Kommando unit gets is different to a 'Burner' that a Burner Boyz unit can get, despite being both called 'Burners'. Or two units with a 'Baleflamer', yet the Baleflamers on each have different rules despite looking like the same gun.

Or two Lascannons having different rules. Or two bolters. Or two Pulse Rifles. Or two Volcano cannons. And so on and so on.

Get it?

I don't understand why you're assuming they'll be different in the first place to be honest. I think the far more likely scenario is that the armouries are at the back of the new 5 books for the factions, with standardised profiles. I mean, there's potential even in 7th that these weapons could have been different codex to codex (and wouldn't be unprecedented either) but they weren't. Seems like an odd thing to get riled up over with no evidence and no logical reason to believe it will happen; bespoke unit rules don't necessarily mean bespoke weapon rules.

But those shields all have different names

Rak'gol look like old 2nd Edition Tyranids to me in all the artwork, I don't think they would be a good new race to bring in. Rather see H'rud, squats, or something completely alien like an army of floating brains that live in the vaccuum of space.

 Shuma-Gorath wrote:
Rather see H'rud, squats, or something completely alien like an army of floating brains that live in the vaccuum of space.

Yeah, me too. I'd rather see a new xenos race than 2 kinds of marines again... Space is big, it ain't all about humanity's inner struggle with chaos and gak.

Genestealer cults are the best thing that's been out in recent years IMO and there are mo unxeplored xeno species in the lore out there - 2 or 3 multi-part kits + a commander would be perfect for me.

It's a vain hope though ;( - we all know that nu-marines + death guard are coming.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I really doubt we'd get the Rak'gol. I mean yeah, it'd be awesome.

mhsellwood wrote:
Ok. So you are just assuming the worst case scenario...

Again, 8th time they've tried to get 40K right. Their track record ain't great. Give me a reason why I should believe that this time it'll be different?

In fairness, its more the 8th time they've released 40k. I'm not sure they've tried to get 40k right at any stage other than a brief window between 3rd and 4th.

 Torga_DW wrote:


In fairness, its more the 8th time they've released 40k. I'm not sure they've tried to get 40k right at any stage other than a brief window between 3rd and 4th.

Probably 5th was also an effort - I remember Allessio talking about going to different clubs to see how people were actually playing the game. He based some rules in 5th on these observations.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
This. I hate rolling for powers. If they made it so you picked your powers it would speed up the pregame as well. They did say that they made significant changes to the psychic system, so I have hopes for something good to come out of it.

I actually don't mind quasi-random powers like in 7th edition as such, when you don't always get to use same cheesy power it forces you to try new things and be imaginative. Also, in the lore sorcery and Warp is supposed to be unpredictable and dangerous.
Problem is that rolling them is such a chore, combined with many other rolls you need to make (Warlord trait, reroll Warlord trait when you didn't get the one you wanted, objectives, deployment etc). None of these is unreasonable by itself but when you add them up together, starting up 7th edition game becomes annoying.

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.

It's great. It means there's more variety in weapons rather than there not being much difference between anti-tank and anti-infantry. Actually there would be little reason to NOT take anti-tank weapons since it is also very good at scything infantry. Heavy bolter? Nah lascannon is better at the job that's supposed to be job of heavy bolter. Screw it.

Basically you would have just grades of same weapon. "Weakest, weaker, weak, strong, stronger, stronger".