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.

 Shuma-Gorath wrote:
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.

Upon seeing them, I immediately though Zoats.

It's interesting to see how the former blast weapons are done as the damage doesn't carry over. I guess it will need some extra ruling like "Blast D6: each hit causes D6 hits". I guess it doesn't make too much difference which way it goes as the other option could have been to give some weapons something like: "Anti-tank D6: this weapon does D6 damage against VEHICLES". This just makes it bit clumsy to do weapons that have multiple damage and blast, as they will be very powerful against single models.

There does need to be a distinction between anti-armor and anti-infantry and things that are in-between. I think the multiple wound concept can help with that so we don't have all lascannon armies. On the note of psychic powers, they need to balance them more so we can buy/choose them. People hated rolling and getting useless powers more than they hated others getting OP powers. If they were balanced I wouldn't even mind continuing to roll for them.

I'm sorry if this has been discussed already (too damn long a thread), but anyone seeing the cover rules implications between the lines?

Look at the Flamer profile. It doesn't have any "ignores cover" rule. Instead, it hits automatically. To me this would implicate cover is a hit modifier. If a weapon hits automatically (like the flamer) it would bypass said modifier and basically "ignore cover". Any thoughts?

Maybe I'm just wishing here, but I hope they made cover a hit modifier (like in SWA)... would make so much more sense than the cover save shenanigans it has been in the past.

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

Indeed that seems to be the case so far. And well, there's also the matter of this existing before and being eerily similar, right down to the name:
http://swtor.wikia.com/wiki/Rakghoul

 Weazel wrote:
I'm sorry if this has been discussed already (too damn long a thread), but anyone seeing the cover rules implications between the lines?

Look at the Flamer profile. It doesn't have any "ignores cover" rule. Instead, it hits automatically. To me this would implicate cover is a hit modifier. If a weapon hits automatically (like the flamer) it would bypass said modifier and basically "ignore cover". Any thoughts?

Maybe I'm just wishing here, but I hope they made cover a hit modifier (like in SWA)... would make so much more sense than the cover save shenanigans it has been in the past.

It has been confirmed (in Twitter?) that cover is a save modifier like in AoS. I would however guess the weapons will have eventually more rules besides the statline.

Pete Foley (one of the Dev Team memeber for 8th) said on Twitter that it increases your save like in AoS.

I wonder what details we'll see today. Maybe physic powers or melee weapons. Either way, I'm looking forward to it.

These new beasties look cool. And it gives me hope that we'll have things like the Hrud in future too. I'd like to see chaos worshiping xenos, just to show that it isn't just humans who fall prey to the dark gods.

EDIT:

AoS cover system? Fandabbydozy!

jamopower wrote:

 Weazel wrote:
I'm sorry if this has been discussed already (too damn long a thread), but anyone seeing the cover rules implications between the lines?

Look at the Flamer profile. It doesn't have any "ignores cover" rule. Instead, it hits automatically. To me this would implicate cover is a hit modifier. If a weapon hits automatically (like the flamer) it would bypass said modifier and basically "ignore cover". Any thoughts?

Maybe I'm just wishing here, but I hope they made cover a hit modifier (like in SWA)... would make so much more sense than the cover save shenanigans it has been in the past.

It has been confirmed (in Twitter?) that cover is a save modifier like in AoS. I would however guess the weapons will have eventually more rules besides the statline.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Pete Foley (one of the Dev Team memeber for 8th) said on Twitter that it increases your save like in AoS.

Meh, okay. Was aware that there was a rumour but wasn't sure it was confirmed or not. Bummer.

 Mr Morden 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.

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

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 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.

I wasn't talking about the lasconnons, but about the flamer. I see no reason why a Flamers couldn't also do multiple wounds to one model with its D6 hits.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden 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.

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

No such assumption. Sometimes it fails, sometimes it succeeds. End result is funnilly enough...same number of wounds.

You save first, then roll for damage. Say you have 4+ save and roll 1d6 for damage and get hit 6 times. 3 times out of 6 you save so suffer 0 wounds. 3 times you fail so get d6 wounds=3d6=10.5 wounds in average.

If you roll for damage first, then save you then have 6d6 damage=21 wounds. You then roll for save so half of them fail=10.5 wounds in.

Average result is same. Save first results in more dramatic saves though. Also results in less dice rolling. 9 dice vs 27 dices in above example...Faster game vs smoother ball curve.

Chikout wrote:
Apologies if this has already been shared but Pete Foley has said on twitter that due to the large amount of questions, they will do a second live FAQ.

If anyone gets the chance, here's one I'd love answered: The previous info indicated a 1500pt Matched Play game would take about 90 minutes using the new rules, but roughly what size of army is 1500pts? By which I mean, are we talking 3rd Edition 1500pts, 5th Edition 1500pts, or 7th Edition 1500pts in terms of model count? A snappy streamlined ruleset is great so long as it retains enough grit and granularity to be interesting, but the idea of scooping literal bucketloads of Guard or Ork infantry off the table every turn isn't particularly appealing.

EDIT:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Please just let us choose our powers. Even if we have to pay for them.

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.

Uuuuugggh, so much this. Indeed, get rid of all random rolling during the army building phase except in the rare case where it's thematically appropriate for a specific character or unit. The leaders of my armies don't change after every battle, so why the hell do they have to play Trait Roulette before every game, in one being a master tacticians, in the next as dumb as a post but dead-propah sneaky. Why do my psykers have Cyclical Selective Amnesia? Just let us choose from a set of roughly equally balanced options or, failing that, from a list with point costs reflecting the relative balance.

tneva82 wrote:

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".

Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

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".

Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.

As I posted above, if there isn't infinite amount of dice rolls, there is a big difference on variance due to probabilities. Making the weapon with higher amount of shots almost always preferable over the one with high damage. Everyone who has played with models having high value attacks hitting on 4+ should know this

 Elbows wrote:
The Multi-Melta rarely showed up models because they weren't available as kit pieces for Marine devastators etc. They were present on some dreads and the landspeeder though and were brutally efficient at wiping out crowds of marines and heavy armour.

And hit multiple locations on the tank boosting up it's anti-tank capability quite a bit.

 jamopower wrote:

As I posted above, if there isn't infinite amount of dice rolls, there is a big difference on variance due to probabilities. Making the weapon with higher amount of shots almost always preferable over the one with high damage. Everyone who has played with models having high value attacks hitting on 4+ should know this

But those weapons have no different preferred target's and that's the point.

 Crimson wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

As I posted above, if there isn't infinite amount of dice rolls, there is a big difference on variance due to probabilities. Making the weapon with higher amount of shots almost always preferable over the one with high damage. Everyone who has played with models having high value attacks hitting on 4+ should know this

But those weapons have no different preferred target's and that's the point.

I guess the idea hasn't been that there would be exactly the same kind of weapons, but this would give some extra design room inside the stats, now the blast weapons and especially the ordnance stuff needs to have some extra ruling where it could just have done 2D6 damage or something like that. But on the other hand there is no going around this as there needs to be some focused high strength weaponry like krak missiles that should be good agains tsingle targets, but not so much against groups. But still, I would say that the damage spreading like in AoS would have been more simple route. However I think it's better wait for the whole picture before jumping in to conclusions.

 jamopower wrote:

I guess the idea hasn't been that there would be exactly the same kind of weapons, but this would give some extra design room inside the stats, now the blast weapons and especially the ordnance stuff needs to have some extra ruling where it could just have done 2D6 damage or something like that. But on the other hand there is no going around this as there needs to be some focused high strength weaponry like krak missiles that should be good agains tsingle targets, but not so much against groups. But still, I would say that the damage spreading like in AoS would have been more simple route. However I think it's better wait for the whole picture before jumping in to conclusions.

Damage spreading like in AOS is completely stupid. It eliminates the difference between multishot and powerful singleshot weapons. I am really happy they didn't adopt this to 40K.

tneva82 wrote:

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".

Which isn't what they've done, thankfully. Lascannons can't scythe through squads. They do the job they're meant to - feth one model up bigtime.

 Crimson wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

I guess the idea hasn't been that there would be exactly the same kind of weapons, but this would give some extra design room inside the stats, now the blast weapons and especially the ordnance stuff needs to have some extra ruling where it could just have done 2D6 damage or something like that. But on the other hand there is no going around this as there needs to be some focused high strength weaponry like krak missiles that should be good agains tsingle targets, but not so much against groups. But still, I would say that the damage spreading like in AoS would have been more simple route. However I think it's better wait for the whole picture before jumping in to conclusions.

Damage spreading like in AOS is completely stupid. It eliminates the difference between multishot and powerful singleshot weapons. I am really happy they didn't adopt this to 40K.

That's why in AoS there are weapons that make e.g. D3 damage instead of 1 against monsters and the stuff that makes lots of damage on single hit are stuff like catapults and sweeping blows.

Crimson wrote:
Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.

Just because two weapons produce the same average wounds per attack doesn't mean those results are distributed the same way. There is only no difference for sample sizes way larger than you'll see in an average game.

 Hollow wrote:
I understand gaming, (I've been playing GW games for nearly 20 years) I just don't get this continual push and demand for balance when perfect balance in a game like this is impossible.

So because 100% is impossible you should settle for 10% when it could become 80%?

Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.

As noted by above posters you get a different distribution and different chances of results. Average damage is not always a useful stat. If I need to take out a 3 wound model on an objective this turn then there are noticeable differences in which weapon can do that. E.g if there is a 4+ Hit, Wound and Save rolls then then the D6 damage weapon is around 8 times better than the D6 attacks weapon.

But then, in AoS as you reference that, there are a lot of synergies and other abilities which affect stuff. If I have an ability that adds +1 attack then I double the damage output of the D6 damage weapon, but not so much to the D6 attacks weapon, now at D6 + 1. If something doubles damages or adds to damage then they end up different etc. Some abilities trigger on doing any damage, in which case the more attacks is better.

Then there is the target that might affect how good both weapons are. Somethings get a better save against weaker damage attacks, or get abilities against weaker attacks. Other things heal so many wounds per turn, so 1 wound per turn over 6 turns may mean that it heals all damage every turn and never counts as damaged, whereas 6 damage in one turn is not so easy to shrug off, leaving for example monsters weaker for longer and also further down the damage chart after the first hit which could be critical.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Crimson wrote:
Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.

Just because two weapons produce the same average wounds per attack doesn't mean those results are distributed the same way. There is only no difference for sample sizes way larger than you'll see in an average game.

They're also simply not the same.

Flamer - D6 shots doing 1 damage vs a unit can kill D6 1W models or put up to D6 wounds on a multi-W model.
Lascannon - 1 shot doing D6 damage can kill a single 1W model, or put up to D6 wounds on a multi-W model.

Why aren't people grasping this crucial difference?

The flamer can kill up to 6 models, but is unlikely to do the multiple wounds on big stuff due to low S and Save Mod.
The lascannon has high S and high Save Mod, so will likely do multiple wounds to a big target but can only ever kill one model per turn.

Methinks people are seeing the word 'unit' when 'model' is written.

So, given a dreadnought is 8W, you're going to have to hit it with on average three wounding lascannons...

Wonder how many wounds the Land Raider has. Looks like no more one-shotted vehicles...

Expect points compensation.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Why aren't people grasping this crucial difference?
[...]
Methinks people are seeing the word 'unit' when 'model' is written.

I believe they're talking about the Age of Sigmar rules, where damage disperses amongst the unit. I think most people would agree that the 40k proposed method sounds better.

zerosignal wrote:So, given a dreadnought is 8W, you're going to have to hit it with on average three wounding lascannons...

Wonder how many wounds the Land Raider has. Looks like no more one-shotted vehicles...

Expect points compensation.

I dunno, lascannons work out to be a fair bit better in the average case, both in terms of outcome variance and damage done, but against the vast majority of guns the dread is way more survivable. With any luck, one shotting anything worth a lot of points will be completely gone, because it's just not fun.

Well why discuss it in this non-AoS thread when it's about 40K and we have the 40K version to discuss here? ;-)

Games Workshop is the abusive boyfriend that you finally managed to tear yourself away from after years of maltreatment following a particularly brutal battering one night.

GW coming to me, hat in hand, saying "we've changed, we've grown as a company, we understand your needs now, we were selfish and stupid and we needed help, and we've gotten that help, just give us a chance" is too little too late.

I've moved on, I'm with another games company now, they treat me well, the way I deserve. I'm happy, for the first time in years, I'm happy. I couldn't face myself in the mirror if I was so weak I gave into the temptation to let GW back in again.

GW was important to me, I'll always have the memories we shared, there were some good times, but it's time to let go.

On the other hand, maybe they really have changed. I know that deep down, GW loves me as a customer. Maybe just a little box of new marines wouldn't hurt, I can always ebay them if it doesn't work out.

Or a starter set......just to test the waters. I know what I'm doing.

Why would you expect points compensation? The only army in game that cannot take vehicles is Tyranid. And they will have a very easy time taking down a dreadnought.