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.

 Kirasu wrote:

 Vryce wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.

They may be functionally more fragile, but the chance for them to be one-shot by the first lascannon that sneezes in their general direction is gone. On top of that, their 'wounds' have almost tripled, going from a 3HP vehicle, to an 8 wound vehicle. And, now, unless they are in cover, the Dread currently has no save, whereas in 8th, they will. The AP of weapons could modify it of course, but a modified save > no save.

Realistically, they're going to be more resilient against the weapons currently used to take them out (HYMP, Scatter lasers, etc.), and mathematically similar in resilience to the weapons that should be used to take them out, currently. And even against the one anti-vehicle weapon we've been shown, the Dread will still get a save against it. A hail-mary save, but a save nontheless. They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it, but they're also not going to be a waste of points that turns into a crater or a piece of terrain on the first turn of the game.

Your pro-change argument is "They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it" which makes absolutely no sense because they were NEVER gods of the battlefield.

What you're actually saying is "At BEST they will be something they never actually were and at WORST they will be just as worthless as before". Not exactly a compelling argument.

Dreadnoughts *are* terrible in virtually every edition of 40k unless they have AV13 (even then they are marginally more useful). Making them able to survive a single hit isn't much of a benefit if they still can't do anything useful considering their MAIN benefit was tarpitting units and slowly killing them. With a 6+ to wound from even a guardsmen they won't be able to do that either and then their target will just run away.

Then why is everyone suddenly bemoaning the fact that Dreadnoughts aren't resilient -now-? If they've never been good, this changes nothing.

Seriously, new rules leaked that show how vehicles will be better off now than they were since the AV mechanic was introduced, and people started loosing their minds because "My Landraider can now be killed by Lasguns!" "My Dreadnought can now be killed by Boltguns!" Meanwhile, conveniently forgetting the fact that (so far as has been confirmed), these vehicles will no longer be instantly rendered useless by a first turn shooting phase. That, right there, is a compelling argument that they are significantly better off than they are now. Factor in the armor save they now have access to, and you're looking at a significant boost in their effectiveness against the things that now are able to hurt them.

All across this forum, you see people complaining that Bolters are terrible. That Lasguns are a joke. Now suddenly they're going to be mowing down Dreadnoughts and Landraiders on tables around the world? How are weapons that are currently derided as being bad at killing infantry, suddenly going to become a vehicles biggest threat?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Still sucks. And they didn't need said character to rule the Imperium, just champion for it.

Why does it matter?

I don't think Roboute is a leader of the entire Imperium, at least not de jure. Lord Commander of the Imperium is 'just' one of the High Lords and the supreme commander of the armed forces.

The guy is a total hypocrite of course "No single individual should have the power Horus had... except me." I hope the High Lords have him assassinated.

Agreed. It'll be rediculously inefficient in points (one way or another) to kill anything bigger than a marine with a lasgun or boltgun. A lascannon will bring a big enough of a punch to ignore the toughness and an AP that will cut that armor save down pretty harshly. Of course this is just guessing, like everyone else claiming the flamer will be the most OP thing in this addition or the most worthless upgrade ever. No one will know until it comes out, but I get the feeling that this will very much be a bring the right tool for the right job kind of thing and it will reward you for not trying to gun down a dreadnought with a massive volley of lasguns, and trying to take it down with actual ordinance.

If Dreads cost 60pts each and have easy access to deepstrike or another low risk method of getting where they need. Or cost 80pts with 2 TL Lascannon and can camp in cover for a 1+ save, all of the arguments start to melt away.

Making judgements on partial information is always going to be a bit of a fools errand.

Sorry if this has been asked or covered before (its a huge thread), but has there been any word on how well this edition is likely to scale down?

I prefer the company-level size of 2e and early 3e to the 28mm Epic behemoth 40K slowly became. Some of the changes I've seen so far have drawn my interest, but supporting much smaller scale games would go a long way toward actually bringing me back.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.

I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.

Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.

Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.

As opposed to, say, Kings of War where you push your models to the middle and roll dice.
Middle of the table complaints come up on just about every war game out there.
When both sides start on opposite sides of the table and if most/darn near every mission is 'annihilate' the other army, a fight in the middle is what you'll see more often than not.
Just watch some battle reports on youtube for just about any war game and you're going to see the bulk of fighting end up in the middle.

Anyone else translated the chaos runes on the new logo yet?

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Anyone else translated the chaos runes on the new logo yet?

Did you?

Lord Kragan wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Anyone else translated the chaos runes on the new logo yet?

Did you?

Yep.

Most of it anyway, the direction keeps changing and its fragmented

 privateer4hire wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That being said, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main priority should be shooting, with close combat there, but not more important than shooting.

I disagree with both of you; the fluff seems to almost always emphasize chopping over shooting. This is a universe where armor that can deflect anti tank rounds is available, and hammers that can flip a tank end over end/Monofilament swords exist.

Not to mention as someone has laid out before, warhammer has always been a worse game when shooting was dominant compared to when it hasn't.

Ah.. "warhammer", synoymous with "push your models to the middle and roll dice".
Come on. AoS has that bad rep now, let's at least allow 40k to have a 50/50 split with shooting. Otherwise, why spend so long selecting gun options when all you need are cc weapons.

As opposed to, say, Kings of War where you push your models to the middle and roll dice.
Middle of the table complaints come up on just about every war game out there.
When both sides start on opposite sides of the table and if most/darn near every mission is 'annihilate' the other army, a fight in the middle is what you'll see more often than not.
Just watch some battle reports on youtube for just about any war game and you're going to see the bulk of fighting end up in the middle.

As a keen learner of military history, I can tell you that a lot of battles in real life were fights up the middle of a field, so I don't know why miniature war-games get criticised for this.

I guess some people want to set up an entire table of terrain then just fight in one corner of it or something.

Actually, the bad rep of AoS for the "Is just a giant meele in the middle" is undeserved by a number of reasons:

-The most OP armies right now are all 100% shooting based and Mortal Wounds spam. The only meele one is the Blodletter-bomb that personally I count it as shooting, because they are shooting you in the face a bomb of 30 blodletters

-Every wargame of mass battles without objetives is a giant battle in the middle. Kings of War is. WHFB was, etc, etc... thats why you use battle plans that have other objetives so you have a better gaming experience. And AoS has a very big number of different battle plans just to avoid a big meele in the middle of the map. If people still want to play that way, well, ok, but saying that is how the most of the battles play is just ignoring the factual evidence.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As a keen learner of military history, I can tell you that a lot of battles in real life were fights up the middle of a field, so I don't know why miniature war-games get criticised for this.

KoW? WHFB? AoS? Medieval and other historical?
Of course they're middle of the field close combat battles. Most of the weapons were pointy, sharp or bludgeoning weapons that involve hitting the opponent with at close range.

I'm fairly sure most battles since guns were common weren't/aren't quite the same.
My point was that shooting should have just as much (or more) relevance in the 41st millenium if we're spending time painting models with guns.

As a keen learner of military history, I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.

Except they're NOT more fragile. You can't one-shot them easily anymore, you can't stun-lock them, you can't Immobilize them, you can't destroy their weapons, etc. 8 Wounds at Toughness 7 is functionally more durable in the old system than 3 Hull Points at AV12/12/10 even if you account for all the special weapon types like Poison and Haywire. Keep in mind also that the Toughness 7 model has a 3+ armour save, whereas the AV12 model had to try and find cover to get any kind of (weak) save. Being able to hurt big models with Boltguns and Lasguns doesn't make them more fragile, it just gives basic units the means to contribute against those durable targets that they were previously useless against.

I have no idea how anyone could think a Toughness 7 model with 8 Wounds and a 3+ save is less durable than an AV 12/12/10 vehicle with 3 Hull Points that is susceptible to the vehicle damage chart, especially when the Rend system means a Dreadnought will likely laugh off a lot of the old AP3 weapons. Off the top of my head and keeping in mind I'm not the best at maths, your basic Space Marine hits on a 3+ and - assuming Strength 4 will need a 6+ to wound Toughness 7 - that means you need roughly 9 shots just to deal 1 Wound to a Dreadnought, or 27 shots to deal 3 Wounds before saves - but only 1 unsaved Wound - to a Dreadnought. Considering a 10 man Tactical Squad can at most put out 20 shots a turn at the moment at 12" range in which case they are already in charge range of said Dreadnought....yeah, I don't see how Dreadnoughts can be considered more fragile based on what we've seen so far.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As a keen learner of military history, I can tell you that a lot of battles in real life were fights up the middle of a field, so I don't know why miniature war-games get criticised for this.

KoW? WHFB? AoS? Medieval and other historical?
Of course they're middle of the field close combat battles. Most of the weapons were pointy, sharp or bludgeoning weapons that involve hitting the opponent with at close range.

I'm fairly sure most battles since guns were common weren't/aren't quite the same.
My point was that shooting should have just as much (or more) relevance in the 41st millenium if we're spending time painting models with guns.

As a keen learner of military history, I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong.

I'm on your side on this one with regard to shooting in 40k.

Long range artillery, telescopic sights, orbital bombardments etc etc

Yes, I believe the main focus of 40k should be the shooting, but always leaving a place for hand to hand combat.

Most armies do focus on shooting. Only a few armies actually do close combat well, so yes 40k is still shooting centric.

The only heavy cc armies tend to be Marines/chaos, nids and orks

Has no one compaining about bolt guns/Lasguns hurting tanks ever actually tried killing mc's with them? I play 30k and even with WotL to double my shots you are lucky to do a single wound. Especially if we are talking about a mc with a +2 save. If it was so easy to kill units like this with bolt and Las guns then why do most people consider mc's better then tanks?

 Kirasu wrote:
Most armies do focus on shooting. Only a few armies actually do close combat well, so yes 40k is still shooting centric.

The only heavy cc armies tend to be Marines/chaos, nids and orks

Dark Eldar and Harlequins also do the CC thing very well.

In fact, my Talos is T7 with a Sv3+ and only W3 and it's an absolute bullet sponge, I'm pretty sure that Dreadnaught is going to be quite tough.

Speaking from experience, trying to kill something like a Trygon with just Bolters doesn't work. A Dreadnought has 2 more wounds than a Trygon currently does (I expect the 8th Edition version of a Trygon to have 12+). Again, I'm not seeing how anyone can think a Dreadnought is less durable than it was before.

Chaos Daemons are also primarily a melee army, just one that - thanks to crappy assault rules in 7th Edition - tends to stick to psyker heavy lists currently.

Yeah, I also can't see how the new vehicle rules would make tanks morfragile Provided that the "To Wound" chart stays the same all vehicles benefit from the new system - try out the scrolls here http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.bg/ and see for yourself. Honestly, 40k plays well under AoS (proto 40k) rules. My main gripe with the new rules are that they're not a completely new and innovative system (I wanted 40k to be a special snowflake) instead being just a more or less predictable upgrade of AoS. Trust me (or don't, whatever ) it plays well enough now and will probably play even better with the new rules... it just won't be a truly great and outstanding gaming system and that's a shame.

 Kirasu wrote:


Your pro-change argument is "They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it" which makes absolutely no sense because they were NEVER gods of the battlefield.

...

Actually they were amazing in 2nd, and pretty solid in 4th.

So far the info makes them look pretty good for 8th.

2nd edition isn't current 40k (which started in 3rd Ed) and no they weren't good in 4th. There hasn't been an instance where n av12 dreadnought​ has been useful except for grey knights in 5th.

You cannot compare rogue trader to anything else, as it was more like a board game (fluff doesn't match either)
2nd Ed can only be compared to necromunda.
3rd-7th is modern 40k and can be compared.

 Vryce wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

 Vryce wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.

They may be functionally more fragile, but the chance for them to be one-shot by the first lascannon that sneezes in their general direction is gone. On top of that, their 'wounds' have almost tripled, going from a 3HP vehicle, to an 8 wound vehicle. And, now, unless they are in cover, the Dread currently has no save, whereas in 8th, they will. The AP of weapons could modify it of course, but a modified save > no save.

Realistically, they're going to be more resilient against the weapons currently used to take them out (HYMP, Scatter lasers, etc.), and mathematically similar in resilience to the weapons that should be used to take them out, currently. And even against the one anti-vehicle weapon we've been shown, the Dread will still get a save against it. A hail-mary save, but a save nontheless. They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it, but they're also not going to be a waste of points that turns into a crater or a piece of terrain on the first turn of the game.

Your pro-change argument is "They wont be gods of the battlefield, striding across the table untouched smashing into your army and single-handedly laying waste to it" which makes absolutely no sense because they were NEVER gods of the battlefield.

What you're actually saying is "At BEST they will be something they never actually were and at WORST they will be just as worthless as before". Not exactly a compelling argument.

Dreadnoughts *are* terrible in virtually every edition of 40k unless they have AV13 (even then they are marginally more useful). Making them able to survive a single hit isn't much of a benefit if they still can't do anything useful considering their MAIN benefit was tarpitting units and slowly killing them. With a 6+ to wound from even a guardsmen they won't be able to do that either and then their target will just run away.

Then why is everyone suddenly bemoaning the fact that Dreadnoughts aren't resilient -now-? If they've never been good, this changes nothing.

Seriously, new rules leaked that show how vehicles will be better off now than they were since the AV mechanic was introduced, and people started loosing their minds because "My Landraider can now be killed by Lasguns!" "My Dreadnought can now be killed by Boltguns!" Meanwhile, conveniently forgetting the fact that (so far as has been confirmed), these vehicles will no longer be instantly rendered useless by a first turn shooting phase. That, right there, is a compelling argument that they are significantly better off than they are now. Factor in the armor save they now have access to, and you're looking at a significant boost in their effectiveness against the things that now are able to hurt them.

All across this forum, you see people complaining that Bolters are terrible. That Lasguns are a joke. Now suddenly they're going to be mowing down Dreadnoughts and Landraiders on tables around the world? How are weapons that are currently derided as being bad at killing infantry, suddenly going to become a vehicles biggest threat?

I actually get a chuckle at people pissing and moaning dreads being killed by bolters since not too long ago in a RTT a guy charged his las canon dread into my 5 man noise marines rhino, wrecked it, I got out 3" then in my turn moved 6" to it's rear and tossed a krack grenade and double tapped my bolters into it stripping all three hull points. We both laughed at how stupid it was that he traded a dreadnought for a rhino essentially. With the new leaks I may be able to shoot it and harm it from the front but at least he will have a 3+ save and almost triple the wounds/HP.

Killing vehicles with small arms fire happens in almost every game I play, maybe my group likes mobility more then most, but it isn't an uncommon event now. I mean look at all the bullet traps and exposed hydraulics and fiber bundles and optics on EVERY model in 40k, pretty sure those are vulnerable spots.

And to anyone claiming "But mah fotey kay is 40,000 years in the future!" I say so? The dark ages were a massive step back from the antiquity era, where art, governments and cultures in general all regressed back to nearly zero, notice this is a setting called the dark age? I mean Jesus, they don't even know how to make new tanks and armor, they are praying to their machines. After 10,000 years of being tech/mechanical morons I would guess that same tank would have newer vulnerabilities

Actually

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/our-voices/battle-of-ideas/the-dark-ages-were-a-lot-brighter-than-we-give-them-credit-for-8215395.html

But I don't disagree with the spirit of your point.

 Lockark wrote:
Has no one compaining about bolt guns/Lasguns hurting tanks ever actually tried killing mc's with them? I play 30k and even with WotL to double my shots you are lucky to do a single wound. Especially if we are talking about a mc with a +2 save. If it was so easy to kill units like this with bolt and Las guns then why do most people consider mc's better then tanks?

THANK you.

Plus hitting any of those vehicles on the rear armor is significantly less durable. That's am equivalent of maybe 3 wounds with no save.

Caederes wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing how making Dreadnoughts more fragile makes them better.

Except they're NOT more fragile. You can't one-shot them easily anymore, you can't stun-lock them, you can't Immobilize them, you can't destroy their weapons, etc. 8 Wounds at Toughness 7 is functionally more durable in the old system than 3 Hull Points at AV12/12/10 even if you account for all the special weapon types like Poison and Haywire. Keep in mind also that the Toughness 7 model has a 3+ armour save, whereas the AV12 model had to try and find cover to get any kind of (weak) save. Being able to hurt big models with Boltguns and Lasguns doesn't make them more fragile, it just gives basic units the means to contribute against those durable targets that they were previously useless against.

I have no idea how anyone could think a Toughness 7 model with 8 Wounds and a 3+ save is less durable than an AV 12/12/10 vehicle with 3 Hull Points that is susceptible to the vehicle damage chart, especially when the Rend system means a Dreadnought will likely laugh off a lot of the old AP3 weapons. Off the top of my head and keeping in mind I'm not the best at maths, your basic Space Marine hits on a 3+ and - assuming Strength 4 will need a 6+ to wound Toughness 7 - that means you need roughly 9 shots just to deal 1 Wound to a Dreadnought, or 27 shots to deal 3 Wounds before saves - but only 1 unsaved Wound - to a Dreadnought. Considering a 10 man Tactical Squad can at most put out 20 shots a turn at the moment at 12" range in which case they are already in charge range of said Dreadnought....yeah, I don't see how Dreadnoughts can be considered more fragile based on what we've seen so far.

I run with talos with my DE regularly and I catch people off guard and beat face with them. They are 3W T7 and have a 3+ save and a 5+ FNP, a dread with 8W with T7 3+ save is better at survival then a talos. I'd encourage anyone thinking that profile sucks in in the CURRENT edition to field some with the leaked changes and come back. I am guessing they will have a change of heart and join the wait and see the big picture crowd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Actually

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/our-voices/battle-of-ideas/the-dark-ages-were-a-lot-brighter-than-we-give-them-credit-for-8215395.html

But I don't disagree with the spirit of your point.

Fair enough, I am sure it's more nuanced then I am giving credit, but to the same degree they continue to find enigma machines and Baghdad batteries also demonstrating further innovation then we give ancient societies credit as well.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Kommandos and Tankbustas in plastic would be welcome

Very much indeed

Tankbustas have been in plastic for years

 Kirasu wrote:
Tankbustas have been in plastic for years

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Ork-Tankbustas

This boxed set contains five Ork Tankbustas and two Bomb Squigs. These models are finely detailed resin cast miniatures.