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.

GW store managers have group meeting last week April. Pre-order following Saturday. Launch 10th June.
Re Physic phase. As I understand you always have 2 Dice for each spell, The strength of the spell has a relative casting number. So if a spell has a casting value of 7. All you have to do is throw 7 on 2 x D6.
Starter box is Marines 2 x Characters, 2 x Marine Squads, Assault Squad, Devastator Squad. v Death Guard, 1 x Character, Cultists, a few Terminators, Plague Marines plus blight Drones.

Found this on T9A. So take it with borderline lethal doses of salt.

Timing is everything.

If it came out before yesterday's article on the "physic" phase then it may have some worth.

Otherwise it's just a rehash of that article and a dodgy Natfka rumour.

Physics phase? Is that what the necrons get instead of a psychic phase?

I wonder if, in order to deny a spell, you have to roll higher than the other psyker. Also, maybe perils will still be of you roll double sixes?

My main list at the moment involves a Land Raider and I'm totally cool with the idea of a space empire's small arms fire being able to damage it if they get a super-lucky shot at a track link or gun barrel. I look forward to the desperation of the loyalist and xenos wretches when they blaze away at it with rifles, trying to delay the attack of the inhabitants by chipping paint off the behemoth.

This isn't even without precedent - in 2ed, if you could move and fire a weapon you could also use it in CC against a vehicle and get a bonus to penetration representing the ability to get more critical strikes at close quarters; in, 3ed an early armoured company list allowed any weapon to get a glancing hit against any AV if it rolled a 6 after a 6 to pen, as a balancing measure for a mass of Leman Russ tanks rolling into a metagame that GW was trying hard to curate to be about Troops.

Hell, whilst Tyranids - my second army - have a codex that's not really fit for else but casual fun play and 7ed is an environment that adds to their troubles, I'm happy in principle for my prey to get Overwatch against me. Nothing feels like a proper swarm attack like running over the bodies of your brood-kin that depleted the prey's ammunition before the feeding frenzy begins.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I wonder if, in order to deny a spell, you have to roll higher than the other psyker. Also, maybe perils will still be of you roll double sixes?

Maybe, or double ones.
In one of the earlier editions (4th, I think?) Perils were boxcars and snakeeyes.

7th Edition became the game of bland cookie cutter lists. A unit that didn't have multi-shot weapons with at least strength 6 became uselss, thus those units were not taken. I don't think I've seen a heavy bolter used since 4th edition. If it wasn't an assault cannon/scatter laser, or HYMP, it was garbage.

Add into this that certain vehicles became jokes. Dreadnoughts weren't great, but still better than Sentinels or the Leman Russ.

Want to win a game in 7th? Spam monstrous and gargantuan creatures (preferably fast, even better if they fly), then pair them up with fast moving shooty units and a psycher(s) that cast invisibility.

If you were orks, IG, sisters, Tyranids, or Dark eldar you had to find your fun in fighting uphill battles.


Whoever thought several glances to kill a vehicle was a better mechanic than trying to one-shot it with the most OTT anti-tank gun your army has got it wrong.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I wonder if, in order to deny a spell, you have to roll higher than the other psyker. Also, maybe perils will still be of you roll double sixes?

Maybe, or double ones.
In one of the earlier editions (4th, I think?) Perils are boxcars and snakeeyes.

Needing double sixes to deny would be cool. Same probability as snakeeyes, so either one works for me. But it would make denying easier as before you needed to deny each warp charge. But casting is easier, so it sort of evens out.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Whoever thought several glances to kill a vehicle was a better mechanic than trying to one-shot it with the most OTT anti-tank gun your army has got it wrong.

Hull Points were a solution to the problem of 5th edition, where you could hit Glances or Penetrates all day, and not do anything if you rolled poorly on Damage Table. It was really frustrating unless you had Railguns (I did).
Alas, they gave Vehicles too few Hull Points so they became too easy to whittle down, and then inexplicably failed to address that in 7th, and then even more inexplicably gave us Scatterbikes which did nothing but strip down hull points...

If it's anything like aos, you just have to beat your opponents roll on 2D6.

Also, anyone worried about small arms damaging big vehicles and monsters, look at it from a different angle. Did anyone see that movie battlefield los angles? Remember how that guy shot down the alien flier, with a trap, his rifle and the radio? Think of something like that. Imagination.

This is how everyone can attack fliers in aos. It's assumed that they have what is needed to so. Grappling hooks, gliders, world war z body pyramids...anything you think up. Just use your imaginations.

Yeah, I started in 3rd edition, where I once started a game with a single Necron Warrior in range of a Hammerhead. I got first turn, hit, glanced, and destroyed it.

3rd-5th edition didn't have vehicles that were too tough or too weak. They were just.....random. If you were lucky a sinlge guy with a meltabomb could drop a landraider. If you were unlucky a devistator sqaud could wiff on killing a Chimera, or possibly just immobilize it.

Here's to hoping that GW has finally learned how to balance vehicles.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Yeah, I started in 3rd edition, where I once started a game with a single Necron Warrior in range of a Hammerhead. I got first turn, hit, glanced, and destroyed it.

3rd-5th edition didn't have vehicles that were too tough or too weak. They were just.....random. If you were lucky a sinlge guy with a meltabomb could drop a landraider. If you were unlucky a devistator sqaud could wiff on killing a Chimera, or possibly just immobilize it.

Here's to hoping that GW has finally learned how to balance vehicles.

And hopefully balance the whole game along with it, hopefully they give each faction their own flavour and don't hand it out to everyone else in formations and begin the power creeping all over again, psychic powers and special rules need to lean the balance in an armies favour so that their opponent can use tactics and his own armies abilities to try to tip it back not flip the table with rediculous rules that his army gained through formations. It's a tough one but I'm hopeful for 8th, I like what I've seen so far

Just as a general side note, I know I'm playing with plastic man-dollies. I know this is a game, so I am fine with certain abstractions. That being said, I'd like a somewhat believable rules base.

I want something that is more than moving action figures around and making pew-pew noises. On the other hand, having a 10,000 page manual for an ultra realistic version of warfare in the future isn't really enjoyable.

I feel that 7th tried to be a little too much of the battle silulator, and at the same time the initial release of AOS was a little too close to playing with action figures. I'm glad AOS readjusted itself, and it looks like 8th edition may have found that happy medium.

 Kirasu wrote:

Why is this perfect? Dreads were virtually useless in the last FIVE editions of the game. The logic escapes me of something being "fine" if an already terrible unit being LESS resilient.

For some reason it seems as if the general 40k population is traumatized by The Wraithlord Syndrome (TWS) where as T8 is somehow too powerful. A T7 dreadnought is an actual downgrade from AV12 (ignoring the 6 to wound everything rule in 8th). If MC's like Trygons are 12+ wounds that'll be even more absurd compared to Dreadnoughts.

If a hypothetical unit is 30% worse than another unit it needs a (difference +50%) buff to be equal.

It's funny you should mention Wraithlords actually. I did some maths against Wraithknights and Riptides in the current game, and it's quite interesting. Compared to the current Riptide, the Dread is more durable vs S5+ shooting. VS the Wraithknight it's more durable vs S5 and S8+ shooting. Now, granted this is a totally new system and those units will doubtless be buffed to be stronger, but I think people are going to have a very rude awakening to how strong these guys are in terms of durability. Even against AP -3 S7 shooting (which is what I'm assuming plasma will be), you're looking at 13.5 hits to kill, instead of ~7.7 hits today (inc chance of instakill). That's harder to kill than a Riptide which isn't using the 3++ reactor - they take 11.25 hits on average to die. You will NEED anti-tank shooting to kill them, and that's good; they've become more durable than they've ever been.

Also, they've not been virtually useless in the past 5 editions. The double autocannon variants saw a good amount of play in 5th (i.e. almost every army used them which had the option to do so), 4th ed saw a LOT of ML+LC/AC dreads played and in 7th, ironclads see a bit of play though admittedly due to broken formations as much as anything else. They've not been great, many of their weapon options have been pretty poor but they've seen play. Their real issue, outside of janky hull point issues, has always been points cost and their poor assault capability (which, in fairness, was somewhat fixed last year), not durability - to know how good they currently are, we'd need to see points across the game, so it's not worth even speculating as to whether they'll be good or bad; we can't know until a meta forms how good they'll be.

Vehicles having a toughness/wounds is Ok if done right. It just changes the mechanics of killing vehicles a little. That said, I DON'T like vehicles not having armor facings - it dumbs down the game. On the other hand, there is an upside in that you can drive your vehicle into the midst of the enemy and be more likely to survive, which I kind of like. Maybe. If it is done right.

 kestral wrote:
Vehicles having a toughness/wounds is Ok if done right. It just changes the mechanics of killing vehicles a little. That said, I DON'T like vehicles not having armor facings - it dumbs down the game. On the other hand, there is an upside in that you can drive your vehicle into the midst of the enemy and be more likely to survive, which I kind of like. Maybe. If it is done right.

There's still so much we don't know. The "vehicle" type could mean they could as -1 toughness when shot in the side, and -2 when hit in the back for all we know. Anyone bitching that dreads sucked in 7th and older and now they are WORSE doesn't have enough information to make that judgement yet. They might have worse survivability to lascannons, or plasma or whatever, but as long as those weapons cost more, or dreads cost less, or the other special rules it has made it better it would work out in the Dread's favor.

I'm super excited for 40k for the first time since the 6th edition rumors (which ended up really disappointing me). A clean slate is exactly what GW needed to do to get all the old timers that quit to give it a fair shot again.

After finally getting through all of the rumors and the most recent Q & A, I've gotta say I was pretty excited. That is until the whole, 'we want all weapons to be relevant' bit.

Standard issue lasguns blowing up tanks is not something that makes any sort of sense. At all. From a game standpoint all it does is make vehicles worse (who knew THAT could happen)and make infantry better (again, who knew that could happen either).

From a fluff standpoint? Well, that's never mattered anyway so I'll just rage about that internally.

Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all vehicles. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Leman Russ or Land Raider when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?

 Frankenberry wrote:
After finally getting through all of the rumors and the most recent Q & A, I've gotta say I was pretty excited. That is until the whole, 'we want all weapons to be relevant' bit.

Standard issue lasguns blowing up tanks is not something that makes any sort of sense. At all. From a game standpoint all it does is make vehicles worse (who knew THAT could happen)and make infantry better (again, who knew that could happen either).

From a fluff standpoint? Well, that's never mattered anyway so I'll just rage about that internally.

Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all vehicles. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Leman Russ or Land Raider when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?

Didn't they say it would take like 500 lasguns to take down a landraider?

FFS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JSG wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
After finally getting through all of the rumors and the most recent Q & A, I've gotta say I was pretty excited. That is until the whole, 'we want all weapons to be relevant' bit.

Standard issue lasguns blowing up tanks is not something that makes any sort of sense. At all. From a game standpoint all it does is make vehicles worse (who knew THAT could happen)and make infantry better (again, who knew that could happen either).

From a fluff standpoint? Well, that's never mattered anyway so I'll just rage about that internally.

Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all vehicles. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Leman Russ or Land Raider when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?

Didn't they say it would take like 500 lasguns to take down a landraider?

Bascially, yes. It's such a non-argument that it barely warrants mentioning, but we're likely to get it every 5 pages because people don't read back in threads any further than that.

It's weird how lasguns can barely hurt anything with decent toughness and saves except for heavy vehicles, apparently.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It's weird how lasguns can barely hurt anything with decent toughness and saves except for heavy vehicles, apparently.

I brought this up earlier in the thread. Everyone bemoans lowly infantry weapons currently as basically worthless. But suddenly they're going to be the weapon of choice for vehicle hunting.

 Vryce wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It's weird how lasguns can barely hurt anything with decent toughness and saves except for heavy vehicles, apparently.

I brought this up earlier in the thread. Everyone bemoans lowly infantry weapons currently as basically worthless. But suddenly they're going to be the weapon of choice for vehicle hunting.

I knew I saw this mentioned earlier. You're absolutely right.

I just realized. With the change in mechanic this might mean shaken and stunned aren't a thing anymore?

No, vehicle damage is apparently linear, with things like weapon destroyed or -1 to hit at set points on their wound track.

These wound tracks will be bespoke though, so you can have a vehicle that basically keeps going until almost dead, and another, with the same number of wounds, which starts to fall to pieces very quickly.

yeah, that's the thing, if a Dreadnought has 8 wounds I'd suspect that a Land Raider has about 11, probably with a 2+ save. (total speculation at this point)

If that's anywhere close, it means it would take the shooting of an entire IG army to take out a landraider. if that every does happen, just thank the other guy for not shooting at the rest of your army that is now about to destroy him.

I mean, really, how often do people think this will ever happen outside of a megabattle? I'm betting you can go 5 normal games between even seeing one wound being lost on a land raider from lasguns/boltguns.

 Lockark wrote:
I just realized. With the change in mechanic this might mean shaken and stunned aren't a thing anymore?

Correct. No more having vehicles just sitting there doing nothing yet not dying.

Incidentally, assuming that lasguns wound a landraider on 6+, and assuming that it has a 2+ save, 50 of them will only inflict 0.69 wounds (1.39 at rapid fire range) a turn. I think it will have about 16 wounds.

Yeah, lasguns will not be a serious threat to big vehicles. So can we just move past this please?

Edit: 16 wounds might be too much, but my point still stands.

The whole "Dreadnoughts have lost durability, the sky is falling" crowd has me a bit confused.

Dreadnought's durability against dedicated anti-tank weapons (based on the stats for lascannons and some reasonable extrapolations) is decreased slightly, (Somewhere around a 15% decrease, I believe?) though they also don't appear to be 1-Hit KO-able anymore, which at least somewhat mitigates that decrease in durability (though it may not do so entirely).

Dreadnoughts durability against small arms fire is a bit more complicated - against S3 or lower, it lost its invulnerability (to which extent, we won't know until we see the To-Wound Table), and against S4 and 5, its durability was decreased for the front and side arcs and increased for the back arc (from 3W wound-on-6s no save to 8W probably-wound-on-6s 3+ save...), but while ALL low Strength weapons are stated to be able to damage a Dreadnought, they don't necessarily do so efficiently.

But its pretty clear that while infantry weapons will "be able to harm" Dreadnoughts, they won't be able to do so with any sort of efficiency. 100 Guardsmen shooting lasguns for several rounds is just not going to be an efficient way to remove a single, relatively cheap-in-points model.

Dreadnoughts seem to have become more durable against Mid-Strength High RoF weapons (HYMPs/MPs, Scatter Lasers, etc.) if the reasonable speculation on their stats is correct (Heavy 4/2 S7 AP-1 and Heavy 4 S6 AP0, respectively) due to the ability to save (either 4+/3+ or 3+/2+ or better, respectively, depending on Cover) and the significantly higher number of wounds (more than doubled!) overcoming the comparatively decreased "to-wound/to-damage" roll needed (for S6 and 7, it went from 6+ and 5+ respectively to 5+ and 4+ respectively).

Looking back at 7th edition, I think its fair to say (based on personal experience and forum input) that when attacking a Dreadnought, the general order for the MOST point-efficient way to kill them was Mid-S High RoF weapon and infantry weapons (S4-5) from behind (generally needing a 5 or 6 to wound and relying entirely on weight of fire to knock off HPs), High-S, Low RoF weapons, and infantry weapons (S3 or less) from behind.

In 8th, again speaking generally (and based on existing stats and reasonable speculations), the order seems to have changed to be High-S/Low RoF weapons, Mid-S/High RoF weapons, and infantry weapons.

Without more information (particularly point costs, cover save rules, and the to-wound table), I don't think anyone can definitively say that Dreadnoughts, AS A WHOLE, have lost durability. They've arguably lost durability in one arena (High S/Low RoF weapons like Lascannons), gained durability in another arena (Mid-S/Low RoF weapons like Scatter Lasers), and homogenized durability in the last arena (Low S/High Quantity weapons like bolters)... but were the High S/Low RoF weapons common/point efficient before, or was the biggest danger to Dreadnought-like vehicles, and most point efficient method of destroying, exactly the weapon group that got its effectiveness decreased by the change in edition?

The only real outlier were Melta weapons (and even then, they seemed to often be available in quantities that dwarfed that of others in that category), and the biggest issue with THEM in 7th edition (their increased chance at 1-Hit-KOing) has the potential to have been addressed (don't know their rules yet, but I'm guessing that 1-Hit-KOing is... unlikely).

Put another way: If all armies in 7th were stripped of Mid-S/High RoF weapons and forced to use High-S/Low RoF weapons to kill tanks, non-special versions of the latter had their ability to 1-Hit-KO tanks removed, and all infantry weapons were given the gauss rule but each such weapon only dealt 1/8 an HP for each glance, would tanks be sufficiently durable for their points?

 Frankenberry wrote:
Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all vehicles. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Leman Russ or Land Raider when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?

"Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all monstrous creatures. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Riptide when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?"

This is you. This is what you sound like. Unless you're seriously proposing that firing 288 lasguns (on average) is a realistic threat to a dreadnaught (which, if the current cost of a guardsman is anything to go by, is ~1400 points of just lasguns all in range, all firing at a single unit) then you should probably reconsider.

 Lockark wrote:
I just realized. With the change in mechanic this might mean shaken and stunned aren't a thing anymore?

That's probably what the new degradation is meant to be.

Which, IMO, is a better representation than just "lulz snapshots"...

Can someone tell me what HYMP/MP means? Glossary links aren't working on iOS -.-

Not taking a Land Raider or Riptide because it can be damaged by anything is like not building a statue because any wind-blown particle can erode it. If you're worried about getting sandblasted to death, just bite the bullet and GIVE ME RAMMING SPEED

(I hope I can still run things over/T-bone them...)