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.

 warboss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.

Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.

Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.

IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.

Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.

And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.

Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.

 warboss wrote:

 Galas wrote:
It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises.
But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a company making promises in the example that started this all (will a kan wall be better?)... but rather an employee whose livelihood depends in part on the success of the product offering a highly biased opinion. In the end, reviews are just opinions and we'll all have to form our own in a few weeks. After being misled about how awesome formations and unbound were going to be and how it is what the community wanted (despite by my recollection no one ever did) by employees in similar positions with 7th edition, holding the position of "show, don't tell" is more accurately described IMO as realistic rather than pessimistic. Luckily for us, GW is actually trying to do that this time around unlike with the rollout of 7th where we had to depend on WD leaks to read the marketing spin and find out just how much of a turd it would be.

Yeah, thats my same approach to all of this. I don't call pesimistic the people that just remains healty skepticism with GW, but this thread is full of people that just wan't to encounter the worst possible scenario the every one single advancement we have had. And people that do the inverse! But normally I find more healthy people that want to look for the good side of things that people that just work hard to see the worst every time. Even if both of them have the same information.

 streetsamurai wrote:
when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless.

Anyways, this is boring and rather OT. If you guys want to get excited cause the developpers are saying this will be the greatest thing ever, go ahead. Me, I'll wait till we have some credible facts before forming an opinion

Nobody cares.

 Galas wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Galas wrote:
It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises.
But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a company making promises in the example that started this all (will a kan wall be better?)... but rather an employee whose livelihood depends in part on the success of the product offering a highly biased opinion. In the end, reviews are just opinions and we'll all have to form our own in a few weeks. After being misled about how awesome formations and unbound were going to be and how it is what the community wanted (despite by my recollection no one ever did) by employees in similar positions with 7th edition, holding the position of "show, don't tell" is more accurately described IMO as realistic rather than pessimistic. Luckily for us, GW is actually trying to do that this time around unlike with the rollout of 7th where we had to depend on WD leaks to read the marketing spin and find out just how much of a turd it would be.

Yeah, thats my same approach to all of this. I don't call pesimistic the people that just remains healty skepticism with GW, but this thread is full of people that just wan't to encounter the worst possible scenario the every one single advancement we have had. And people that do the inverse! But normally I find more healthy people that want to look for the good side of things that people that just work hard to see the worst every time. Even if both of them have the same information[/u].

i disagree on this. Your satisfaction on something is based a lot on the expectations you had prior to using or experimenting the thing in question. Those that are irrationnally optimistic about 8th edition are bound to create expectations that it surely won't be able to meet, even if it's a terrific game, which will lead to a lot of dissapointment. Hence why I think that they are more detrimental than eternally pessimistic persons in the grand scheme of things.

Can we not have a meta discussion about rumors and teasers please?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.

Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.

Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.

IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.

Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.

And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.

Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.

Something that didn't really come up in the "are dreads more or less durable now" argument, that I saw, was how much swingier vehicle damage is now. While an 8th Dread may be +\- x% more or less durable than a 7th one to lascannons, the fact is that it only ever took 3 wounding lascannon shots to take down a 7th Dread, and shots one and two could severely impact the efficacy of the unit. An 8th Dread can, theoretically, take 8 wounding shots, and potentially keep operating at full capacity for far longer, depending on the damage track.

These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up. If on each of those occasions the Dread also manages to maintain any form of optimal (i.e. normal) damage output without track results interfering, then you've got a decent boost overall.

Oh yes. As someone that follow pretty closely the Videogames scene I have seen the hurt that the hype can cause to project. The over spectations that people put into things many times are absurds.
When I was talking about healthy, I was referring to the own people. Being a reasonable adult if the best solution, obviously, but many times I have find people that just works hard to be depressed and always see the bad side to everything.
I'm not wanting to do here a psychologycal analysis of anyone, just sharing my mind about this "Good vs bad"... I only wanted to participate in your conversation.

But sorry for the OT, I will stop now.

Since not everyone makes it over to the nuts and bolts subforum, I figured this would be a good time to post the salt sprinkling orkmoticon I submitted a week ago in honor of this thread.



It seems appropriate given the current discussion.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Galas wrote:
It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises.
But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a company making promises in the example that started this all (will a kan wall be better?)... but rather an employee whose livelihood depends in part on the success of the product offering a highly biased opinion. In the end, reviews are just opinions and we'll all have to form our own in a few weeks. After being misled about how awesome formations and unbound were going to be and how it is what the community wanted (despite by my recollection no one ever did) by employees in similar positions with 7th edition, holding the position of "show, don't tell" is more accurately described IMO as realistic rather than pessimistic. Luckily for us, GW is actually trying to do that this time around unlike with the rollout of 7th where we had to depend on WD leaks to read the marketing spin and find out just how much of a turd it would be.

Yeah, thats my same approach to all of this. I don't call pesimistic the people that just remains healty skepticism with GW, but this thread is full of people that just wan't to encounter the worst possible scenario the every one single advancement we have had. And people that do the inverse! But normally I find more healthy people that want to look for the good side of things that people that just work hard to see the worst every time. Even if both of them have the same information[/u].

i disagree on this. Your satisfaction on something is based a lot on the expectations you had prior to using or experimenting the thing in question. Those that are irrationnally optimistic about 8th edition are bound to create expectations that it surely won't be able to meet, even if it's a terrific game, which will lead to a lot of dissapointment. Hence why I think that they are more detrimental than eternally pessimistic persons in the grand scheme of things.

What, and nothing decent ever got a rough ride because people didn't give it a fair shot because there was negativity surrounding it?

It's a bs argument, neither is any good, and advocating one over the other is just a question of whichever one fits your personal echo chamber.

 Galas wrote:
Oh yes. As someone that follow pretty closely the Videogames scene I have seen the hurt that the hype can cause to things. The over spectations that people put into things many times are absurds.
When I was talking about healthy, I was referring to the own people. Being a reasonable adult if the best solution, obviously, but many times I have find people that just works hard to be depressed and always see the bad side to everything.
I'm not wanting to do here a psychologycal analysis of anyone, just sharing my mind about this "Good vs bad"... I only want to participate in your conversation.

But sorry for the OT, I will stop now.

Yes, I do agree that some persons seems to enjoy being miserable and finding a problem with everything and anything. And this attitude seems to be more common in the nerd community. I still rebember, when PP announced that the Convergence will be a one time only release, that some people were complaining that PP deliberstely misled them by not telling them so earlier. And PP made the announcement prior to the release of the faction in question


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Galas wrote:
It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises.
But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a company making promises in the example that started this all (will a kan wall be better?)... but rather an employee whose livelihood depends in part on the success of the product offering a highly biased opinion. In the end, reviews are just opinions and we'll all have to form our own in a few weeks. After being misled about how awesome formations and unbound were going to be and how it is what the community wanted (despite by my recollection no one ever did) by employees in similar positions with 7th edition, holding the position of "show, don't tell" is more accurately described IMO as realistic rather than pessimistic. Luckily for us, GW is actually trying to do that this time around unlike with the rollout of 7th where we had to depend on WD leaks to read the marketing spin and find out just how much of a turd it would be.

Yeah, thats my same approach to all of this. I don't call pesimistic the people that just remains healty skepticism with GW, but this thread is full of people that just wan't to encounter the worst possible scenario the every one single advancement we have had. And people that do the inverse! But normally I find more healthy people that want to look for the good side of things that people that just work hard to see the worst every time. Even if both of them have the same information[/u].

i disagree on this. Your satisfaction on something is based a lot on the expectations you had prior to using or experimenting the thing in question. Those that are irrationnally optimistic about 8th edition are bound to create expectations that it surely won't be able to meet, even if it's a terrific game, which will lead to a lot of dissapointment. Hence why I think that they are more detrimental than eternally pessimistic persons in the grand scheme of things.

What, and nothing decent ever got a rough ride because people didn't give it a fair shot because there was negativity surrounding it?

It's a bs argument, neither is any good, and advocating one over the other is just a question of whichever one fits your personal echo chamber.

Care to give us any studies on how they are equally nocive? Cause right now, you're only trying to pass an opinion (my POV was also an opinion, but I clearly said it was an opinion) as a fact, in your usual arrogant way.

I'm just going to let people see that response and come to their own conclusions.

So it was only an opinion, even thought you expressed it like it was an irrefutable fact?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.

Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.

Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.

IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.

Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.

And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.

Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.

Something that didn't really come up in the "are dreads more or less durable now" argument, that I saw, was how much swingier vehicle damage is now. While an 8th Dread may be +\- x% more or less durable than a 7th one to lascannons, the fact is that it only ever took 3 wounding lascannon shots to take down a 7th Dread, and shots one and two could severely impact the efficacy of the unit. An 8th Dread can, theoretically, take 8 wounding shots, and potentially keep operating at full capacity for far longer, depending on the damage track.

These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up. If on each of those occasions the Dread also manages to maintain any form of optimal (i.e. normal) damage output without track results interfering, then you've got a decent boost overall.

Average of 1d6 would be 3.5 which means on average it'd take 2-3 successful Lascannon shots to kill it assuming you didn't pass your 6+ armour save and hadn't popped smoke at the time.

This is assuming that the D6 applies after you wound and not before of course, as if you roll before rolling to wound the number of shots may be higher thanks to a more changes to reduce the incoming damage via saves.

Of course we're missing more information but against dedicated anti-tank weapons (particularly ones that didn't see much love by players in editons past, like the lascannon) being a weapon that can punch through a tank makes sense. The problem breaks down to how much a lascannon costs (currently around 34 points on a vanilla Devastator and not counting the rest of the unit) and how much the target costs. A lascannon at tha cost one shotting a Rhino feels fair currently because they're the same cost, but one shotting a hundred plus point tank tends to leave most of us feeling rather cold.

It will be interesting to see where this all goes and hopefully the game reaches a balance point where things feel roughly on par for the same cost. Perfection can come later, I just want something functional that doesn't have too many problems at launch.

Antitank weapon should destroy Tanks with a cheaper investment of points. Thats why you bring Anti-X weapons to the table.

If they cost the same, then you don't need Anti-X. Just bring the X and roll with it. Obviously, this need to be balanced. It should be cheaper, but not so cheap that makes X useless.

Regarding 'summoning':

What about things like the Tervigon? If you have to pay for the Termagants it spits out, why even bother taking it?

Would you need to pay points for Blue Horrors if you brought Pink Horrors? Pay points for the Brimstone Horrors that come out of Blue Horrors?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Regarding 'summoning':

What about things like the Tervigon? If you have to pay for the Termagants it spits out, why even bother taking it?

Would you need to pay points for Blue Horrors if you brought Pink Horrors? Pay points for the Brimstone Horrors that come out of Blue Horrors?

I hope so. The number of blue and brimstone horrors coming out of a pink horror is fixed, so it would be easy to give a point cost to it

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can we not have a meta discussion about rumors and teasers please?

Indeed. Let's get it back on track, please. The topic is not 'Marketing Spin'. Nor is it 'Negativity in Online Commentary'. Both of those discussions can be held elsewhere.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Regarding 'summoning':

What about things like the Tervigon? If you have to pay for the Termagants it spits out, why even bother taking it?

Would you need to pay points for Blue Horrors if you brought Pink Horrors? Pay points for the Brimstone Horrors that come out of Blue Horrors?

If they do it like in AoS, maybe a Tervigon can give "reinforcements" to Termagants units for free, without making them bigger that they initial size. That kind of reinforcement in AoS is free.
And to the second question, in AoS, yes. You need to pay points for that. Thats why I said that summoning in AoS is pretty useless. Personally, I think Pink Horrors should be costed with the price of Blue Horrors and Brimstones included. (Not 1:1 point relation, because is better to have them separated that a unit spliting as it is killed)

Actually to take the odds thing further, a unit of Devastators shooting an unobstructed Dreadnought in the new edition would fire four times, hit 66% of the time 3+) wound on 83% of the time (2+), which would see 16% of the wounds saved (6+) after which each wound would do an average of 3.5 wounds.

Assuming this on average the Dreadnought would take roughly 6.4 wounds from a Devastator squad armed with 4 Lascannons in a shooting phase on average.

That still leaves 1-2 wounds left. Considering no more damage table for instant explodes or wrecked results from wounds, that looks like a boost to me over the old Dreadnought.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.

Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.

Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.

IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.

Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.

And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.

Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.

Something that didn't really come up in the "are dreads more or less durable now" argument, that I saw, was how much swingier vehicle damage is now. While an 8th Dread may be +\- x% more or less durable than a 7th one to lascannons, the fact is that it only ever took 3 wounding lascannon shots to take down a 7th Dread, and shots one and two could severely impact the efficacy of the unit. An 8th Dread can, theoretically, take 8 wounding shots, and potentially keep operating at full capacity for far longer, depending on the damage track.

These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up. If on each of those occasions the Dread also manages to maintain any form of optimal (i.e. normal) damage output without track results interfering, then you've got a decent boost overall.

Average of 1d6 would be 3.5 which means on average it'd take 2-3 successful Lascannon shots to kill it assuming you didn't pass your 6+ armour save and hadn't popped smoke at the time.

This is assuming that the D6 applies after you wound and not before of course, as if you roll before rolling to wound the number of shots may be higher thanks to a more changes to reduce the incoming damage via saves.

Of course we're missing more information but against dedicated anti-tank weapons (particularly ones that didn't see much love by players in editons past, like the lascannon) being a weapon that can punch through a tank makes sense. The problem breaks down to how much a lascannon costs (currently around 34 points on a vanilla Devastator and not counting the rest of the unit) and how much the target costs. A lascannon at tha cost one shotting a Rhino feels fair currently because they're the same cost, but one shotting a hundred plus point tank tends to leave most of us feeling rather cold.

It will be interesting to see where this all goes and hopefully the game reaches a balance point where things feel roughly on par for the same cost. Perfection can come later, I just want something functional that doesn't have too many problems at launch.

I think damage rolled once its got through any saves is almost a certainty, it seems the most intuitive and was also how it worked in 2nd. Having Marines need to point 6 Lascannon at a Dread to have an average chance of taking it down seems about right, but points will make a break a lot of this, of course.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Regarding 'summoning':

What about things like the Tervigon? If you have to pay for the Termagants it spits out, why even bother taking it?

Would you need to pay points for Blue Horrors if you brought Pink Horrors? Pay points for the Brimstone Horrors that come out of Blue Horrors?

I'm willing to bet that since Tervigons and Spyders have mechanics to prevent infinite unit spawning and you have to lose a zpink Horror to gain those two Blue Horrors that these won't require points investments. The way the summoning circus was run it could potentially generate an unlimited number of points daemons over the course of a game thus requiring further balancing.

 Azreal13 wrote:

These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up.

Although that 4th Lascannon shot can also be a bolter shot... 8th has made it so that when your squad shoots at the front of a dreadnought, the rest of the unit isn't just standing there watching the heavy weapon guy... While it requires a lot of sixes, a single Tactical squad can potentially take out a dreadnought in the first turn without a heavy weapon.

Against any single heavy weapon, dreads might have become more durable in 8th, but they've been opened up to potential damage from a wider range of weapons. And, of course, for heavy weapons we've only seen Lascannons so far... we have no idea how much damage any of the other heavy options will do.

IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.

Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.

And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.

Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.

AV12 is roughly equivalent to T8 compared to everything but S5. However the current Dread doesn't have an armour save, and from behind it's only AV10. T7, 3+ save and 8 wounds will probably be about right. The math hammer comparison will differ from weapon to weapon but I imagine the current dread will end up "feeling" tougher for at least the first round of Codexes.

I reckon you're right on tanks in melee. Nothing special in combat unless they charge that turn, but nasty if they're tooled up for ramming.
I also suspect you're right on the rhino, but with a 3+ save because marines.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.

Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.

Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.

IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.

Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.

And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.

Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.

Something that didn't really come up in the "are dreads more or less durable now" argument, that I saw, was how much swingier vehicle damage is now. While an 8th Dread may be +\- x% more or less durable than a 7th one to lascannons, the fact is that it only ever took 3 wounding lascannon shots to take down a 7th Dread, and shots one and two could severely impact the efficacy of the unit. An 8th Dread can, theoretically, take 8 wounding shots, and potentially keep operating at full capacity for far longer, depending on the damage track.

These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up. If on each of those occasions the Dread also manages to maintain any form of optimal (i.e. normal) damage output without track results interfering, then you've got a decent boost overall.

Average of 1d6 would be 3.5 which means on average it'd take 2-3 successful Lascannon shots to kill it assuming you didn't pass your 6+ armour save and hadn't popped smoke at the time.

This is assuming that the D6 applies after you wound and not before of course, as if you roll before rolling to wound the number of shots may be higher thanks to a more changes to reduce the incoming damage via saves.

Of course we're missing more information but against dedicated anti-tank weapons (particularly ones that didn't see much love by players in editons past, like the lascannon) being a weapon that can punch through a tank makes sense. The problem breaks down to how much a lascannon costs (currently around 34 points on a vanilla Devastator and not counting the rest of the unit) and how much the target costs. A lascannon at tha cost one shotting a Rhino feels fair currently because they're the same cost, but one shotting a hundred plus point tank tends to leave most of us feeling rather cold.

It will be interesting to see where this all goes and hopefully the game reaches a balance point where things feel roughly on par for the same cost. Perfection can come later, I just want something functional that doesn't have too many problems at launch.

I think damage rolled once its got through any saves is almost a certainty, it seems the most intuitive and was also how it worked in 2nd. Having Marines need to point 6 Lascannon at a Dread to have an average chance of taking it down seems about right, but points will make a break a lot of this, of course.

I agree, it does seem to make the most sense, and the level of durability of a Dreadnought feels pretty good right now, but points will make or break everything going forward.

That said I could potentially see Lascannons make their way back into the game more often since they have a strong amount of damage potential assuming they don't get shafted by their points. The inability to do more than one HP/Wound per hit and only having one shot made them less desirable for points compared to cheaper options but it looks like that will swing back the oher way a bit now.

Question I have though is if they made plasma better to take (and plasma pistols cheaper as 15 points for an exploding pistol that is worse than an Inferno Pistol that costs 10 is friggin' silly). I don't mind Get's Hot but it needs something to really give it an edge aainst other more options as right now it's more a weapon that looks cool than is useful.

I would actually like the save to be made for each wounds rather than being an all or nothing affair. But I doubt it will be the case

 insaniak wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up.

Although that 4th Lascannon shot can also be a bolter shot... 8th has made it so that when your squad shoots at the front of a dreadnought, the rest of the unit isn't just standing there watching the heavy weapon guy... While it requires a lot of sixes, a single Tactical squad can potentially take out a dreadnought in the first turn without a heavy weapon.

Against any single heavy weapon, dreads might have become more durable in 8th, but they've been opened up to potential damage from a wider range of weapons. And, of course, for heavy weapons we've only seen Lascannons so far... we have no idea how much damage any of the other heavy options will do.

I think the Lascannon is going to have to offer high potential damage relative to other options, as it needs to offer something to avoid a repeat of all of the last few editions, assuming they've made a fist of balancing gak out and there's going to be legitimate fors and againsts for all options, and that seems both functional and fluffy.

As for Bolters, yeah, well, I'm not overly bothered by that conceptually, and it's not that different from the Carnifex as it stands now.

Leggy wrote:

IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.

Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.

And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.

Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.

AV12 is roughly equivalent to T8 compared to everything but S5. However the current Dread doesn't have an armour save, and from behind it's only AV10. T7, 3+ save and 8 wounds will probably be about right. The math hammer comparison will differ from weapon to weapon but I imagine the current dread will end up "feeling" tougher for at least the first round of Codexes.

I reckon you're right on tanks in melee. Nothing special in combat unless they charge that turn, but nasty if they're tooled up for ramming.
I also suspect you're right on the rhino, but with a 3+ save because marines.

I definitely agree that it currently feels right. Perhaps a bit tougher han our current lists are geared for, but time will tell once we know what points look like.

Ramming being a charge thing could be quite fun. Granted that means charging your Rhino 2d6+1" into the enemy unit, but it's tough enough to make such a move useful if allowed (allowing occupants a chance to get right on top of the enemy army) and could result in new tactics centered around crushing your opponents under your treads before hopping out to charge them.

Granted that's strait wishlisting but it's cinematic right?

And I could see vehicles floating around 3+ for your average tanks and medium weight walkers, 4+ for light vehicles (Scout Sentinels, Killa Kans) and 5+ on things like Trukks.

I am willing to guess some super heavies could be a 2+ as well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Question I have though is if they made plasma better to take (and plasma pistols cheaper as 15 points for an exploding pistol that is worse than an Inferno Pistol that costs 10 is friggin' silly). I don't mind Get's Hot but it needs something to really give it an edge aainst other more options as right now it's more a weapon that looks cool than is useful.

.

Yeah, guns are ok, but pistols and cannons need something.

Cannons getting multiple hits rather than a small blast may be enough, perhaps with D3 damage?

A small points drop on pistols, allied with the fact they'll actually get to shoot more often, might work too.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Cadians don't need a style makeover. They're an iconic and well established part of the 40K lore and artwork, and have a huge range of products.

What we need are new releases to cover and/or expand on the other Imperial Guard Regiments, especially ones that don't follow the Cadian pattern of equipment. Updated infantry for Valhallans, Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Tallarns, Mordian Iron Guard, Praetorian Guard.... New kits for command squads, independent characters and heavy team weapon teams. Conversion kits for vehicles.

And maybe even kits for Regiments that have never been represented by GW, like the Harakoni Warhawks, Savlar Chem Dogs, Mordant Acid Dogs and new original Regiments.

And the way it's looking over at Forge World, Elysians too.


I'm all for IG model range expansion and updates. But I have a bad feeling that this is going to be the SPHESS MUHREHN edition when it comes to the Imperium. Moreso than it already is.

I am willing to guess some super heavies could be a 2+ as well.

Calling it now, IKs get 3+ with 2+ on a facing. I know facings seem to have departed, but I can still se this happening.