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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

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.

I think Knights will be just 3+ all around to be honest.

 Azreal13 wrote:

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.

I could see the shield bonus still working like that. The Baneblade varients feel like hey should be 2+ save models but then again they cold just be a 3+ with like 24 wounds.

 Azreal13 wrote:

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.

It'll be something ridiculous like roll a d3, on a 3, you get to make your Invulnerable save.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

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.

It'll be something ridiculous like roll a d3, on a 3, you get to make your Invulnerable save.

You only get your invulnerable save if ou're holding a shield?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

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.

I could see the shield bonus still working like that. The Baneblade varients feel like hey should be 2+ save models but then again they cold just be a 3+ with like 24 wounds.

Plus the damage results are all unique to the vehicle I believe? So the big things like BBlades might have 24 wounds and all the damage results waaay down the end, like from 8 wounds down or something, so they get to keep going full bore for a good while. I can also see the LR working similarly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

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.

It'll be something ridiculous like roll a d3, on a 3, you get to make your Invulnerable save.

You only get your invulnerable save if ou're holding a shield?

Your opponent fires a gun at you, if you successfully deflect the bullet with your right palm, the wound is saved.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

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.

It'll be something ridiculous like roll a d3, on a 3, you get to make your Invulnerable save.

You only get your invulnerable save if ou're holding a shield?

Basically. They will do something to make it so the shield only affects some hits.

 adamsouza wrote:

Spoiler:

Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?

If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?

So wait, models in Reserves should be FREE?

Does that mean I can just pull a Warhound out of hammerspace?

Maybe they can chose to shoot or block? I wish these sort of options were in the game.

Okay, time for a catch up post

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What do the Chaos Gods see in Abaddon anyway? He has a 10,000 year long track record of failure after all.

You don't understand Chaos - if they win the war - the game and the fun ends

Exactly. Remember the last time when Chaos won the game? WFB got wiped and the AoS lore happened. *Shudders*

 matphat wrote:
Just got this from Pete...possible good news for Orks?
@GeekJockPete My Kan Wall really wants back on the table! Will we see more effective walkers this time around?

Pete Foley‏
I think they will be a lot better, all walkers should be in #New40k

Yeah, I think that's a given if you just take a look at the new Dreadnought profile. Same vulnerability as lascannons as they are now (as it should be, they are expensive and extremely specialized for a reason), much less vulnerable against bolters (if you were in rapid fire range and the Dead didn't get into melee you'd often just move around it and kill it with statistically 26 bolter shots from behind, that still trumps being able to but needing, what, 125 bolter shots, or over 7 turns of rapid fire from 10 Marines with bolters, to kill them from the front?) and a massive increase in survivability against its number 1 Nemesis, S6/S7 spam. Also no more lucky one-shots, no more immobilized (effectively as good as being dead for any close combat walker) and no more half your weapons getting destroyed just like that, step-by-step lowering of stats is massively better. At worst a 6+ armour save even against lascannons, likely 5+ against krak missiles and 4+ against autocannons (unless melta is AP -4, possible, but that wouldn't be much of a difference to their lethality as it is now). Likely a 2+ armour save for Dreads likeBjorn and Ironclads. And last but not least: a 2+ armour saves in cover.

 davou wrote:

How is it summoning if you just take the models out of your case and plonk them down? You gotta use actual magic to manifest the models you want to play with
Having things for free is the rotten core of what was ruining the game, you're gonna have to make some other kind of fluff justification for it, because getting things for nothing is garbage.

+1

 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.

Completely agreed. The way to go is not killing the Cadians as they are and piss of thousands of players that like them and have armies of them, but to promote other regiments more. And seriously, the guard is not even the worst offender of the poster boy syndrome, I mean there is even a Catachan equivalent for almost any set or bits for them, and plenty of other regiments have unique metal sets for them, even if they should totally be replaced with plastic ones.
If you want it really bad just take a look at the Ultramarines and particularly the Order of our Martyred Lady (I mean, when was the last time you saw a SoB that wasn't white haired and wearing black and red armour anywhere besides some BL novels?), the latter still reigning absolutely supreme when it comes to being overrepresented.

In regards to the toughness and save compared to armor values, I have a vehicle and monstrous creature design rules set linked in my signature.

You can use the point totals from the math for armor values and then look for the same point costs in the toughness and save chart to get a good idea of how things will work.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Okay, time for a catch up post

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What do the Chaos Gods see in Abaddon anyway? He has a 10,000 year long track record of failure after all.

You don't understand Chaos - if they win the war - the game and the fun ends

Exactly. Remember the last time when Chaos won the game? WFB got wiped and the AoS lore happened. *Shudders*

It's almost as if advancing the plotline of an apocalyptic setting just causes loads of problems and probably isn't a good idea in the first place...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

Spoiler:

Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?

If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?

So wait, models in Reserves should be FREE?

Does that mean I can just pull a Warhound out of hammerspace?

Clearly. If you can't get free models from hammerspace (of course, if your opponent is also able to get the same benefit----that would be unfair), then summoning is clearly worthless.

 privateer4hire wrote:

Clearly. If you can't get free models from hammerspace (of course, if your opponent is also able to get the same benefit----that would be unfair), then summoning is clearly worthless.

You know the Rick and Morty line about it being slavery with extra steps ?

8E summoning sounds like reserves with extra steps.

Shouldn't the splitting abilities of Pink Horrors be included in their cost? The idea that you'd have to pay extra points for their main ability to even function is just daft.

If its like AoS and you set aside points to pick and choose what you want to bring forth, that would be fine.

Nobody will use it, like nobody summons in AoS, but getting things for nothing (whether it be Marine Transports, AdMech upgrades, Genestealer Cults, or Chaos summoning daemons) was janky and hopefully will be changed.

The extent i could see it being alright would be Genestealer cultists adding models to existing units, and maybe buffing the amount you get if a icon is nearby, or something. Even that makes me leery, though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
[
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.

He wasn't talking about averages but how many shots it can potentially take. In 7th ed there was NO WAY WHATSOEVER it takes more than 3 wounding hits to take out dread. None whatsoever. MEanwhile it was possible to blow up dread in first wounding hit.

In 8th ed minimum goes to 2 wounding hits, maximum 8.

And of course this is with specialized anti-tank weapon.

And btw whether you roll damage before or after saves has zero impact on averages. Only effects it has is reduce result curves(ie less extreme results) at the cost of more dice rolling. Ie if you roll damage after saves you can have much more likely odd scenario where dread saves all 3 6+ saves for 0 damage than if you rolled before saves when odds of getting 0 damage is much lower. Average damage same but extreme results happen more often. But you roll in average 13.5 dices vs average of 5.5 dice or so.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 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.

The question is what is the target for plasma?

Lascannons and meltaguns will be optimized for large targets with mutliple wounds. The same will probably apply to grav guns. So the remaining role of plasma is to kill armored infantry, and for that it doesn't need multiple damage.

 Azreal13 wrote:

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.

If they wanted to have facings for IK why not facing for EVERY vehicle. I mean it's not too hard to have variable T or save based on facing...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyran wrote:
Lascannons and meltaguns will be optimized for large targets with mutliple wounds. The same will probably apply to grav guns. So the remaining role of plasma is to kill armored infantry, and for that it doesn't need multiple damage.

Heavily target infantry is pretty good target. More shots than lascannon is handy.

And as for multiple damage..Terminators? If it has d3 it has 66% chance of killing terminator per hit that gets past saves vs needing 2 hits past saves every time.

I hope armor facings go away. That was another sometimes contentious part of the game.

Yeah lets hope one of the few tactical aspect of 40k goes away

 Sarigar wrote:
I hope armor facings go away. That was another sometimes contentious part of the game.

Did you think? I always thought they were pretty clear. If unsure you dice for it.

However removing them will speed things up a little I guess. I'm wondering if there will be the same system as in Epis in that if you can trace los across the target from one unit to another it gets a -1 to armour save, or a similar mechanism.

 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.

Weapon profiles in 8ed are going to have a damage stat, though. I think the article on weapon profiles actually featured lascannons and said they do d6 wounds. That averages out to 3 wounds a hit, which makes a dreadnought basically as durable next edition as they are now. Even on consistently below average rolls, dreadnoughts would only be more survivable by one whole hit, assuming lascannnons and their ilk wound consistently. The potential exists for dreadnoughts to be more (and less) survivable, but the median average is basically the same as it is now. Of course, all of the weird corner cases in 40k come up more often than in other games, so I don't think its too much to be excited for them.

One thing I'm interested in is how Light and super light vehicles will translate into 8ed. x2+2 would make Eldar vipers 6 wounds, which doesn't quite feel right, so some adjusting up and down would be necessary but cases like these make me wonder if a lot of the rules designers just went right to whatever feels right, since a lot of algorithm results would end up being rubbish. What will sentinels look like in 8th ed? T7 W4 3+? and how different will contemptors be from normal boxy dreadnoughts? T7 W8 2+ 5++?

One of my hopes for this edition is for a lot of units that don't see a lot of play will become better. A lot of weapons will fall clearly into a "High RoF, Low Damage," or "Low RoF, High Damage" category and full size units of 2-4 wound models will make both categories inefficient, causing terminators, full size sentinel squadrons, land speeders, attack bikes in squadrons (and not upgrades to bike squadrons) and other obscure things will become desirable in order to break the metagame, so this change probably excites me the most.

 Sarigar wrote:
I hope armor facings go away. That was another sometimes contentious part of the game.

Greet the age of vehicles moving side ways as it would be stupid not to.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Yeah lets hope one of the few tactical aspect of 40k goes away

Or we could replace it with an even better, more tactical version that doesn't involve arguments about fractions of angles, nor a multitude of unsupported opinions on what exactly constitutes the front of any of the various vehicles that doesn't fit into a neat box, one which doesn't require different unit types to have radically different profiles?
Specifically, the flanking rule from Epic: Armageddon, wherein if you have units within range of each other on opposite sides of an enemy unit, the enemy gets additional save and morale penalties.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

Spoiler:

Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?

If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?

So wait, models in Reserves should be FREE?

Does that mean I can just pull a Warhound out of hammerspace?

Just to note. The advantage of summoning over normal reserve if that you set aside the points and then get to spend them based of the situation.

So in a tournament situation you could choose between units/equipment based on if your fighting marines or. Orks for example.

So is summoning free units gone. I'm seeing talk about it but haven't found anything confirming. It's difficult to find anything thru all the arguments.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
I hope armor facings go away. That was another sometimes contentious part of the game.

Greet the age of vehicles moving side ways as it would be stupid not to.

That has existed in every edition since 3rd, but good try at snarkiness

 Lockark wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

Spoiler:

Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?

If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?

So wait, models in Reserves should be FREE?

Does that mean I can just pull a Warhound out of hammerspace?

Just to note. The advantage of summoning over normal reserve if that you set aside the points and then get to spend them based of the situation.

So in a tournament situation you could choose between units/equipment based on if your fighting marines or. Orks for example.

Pretty much this, provided it's a straight port of the AoS rules.

Rather than putting points aside for a specific unit, you get to choose what you summon when you cast. In essence, it's a more tactically flexible Deepstrike, as you can fit the unit to the situation.

Just catching up on the thread and I just noticed something the person saying the testers chosen is an issue appears to have been right.

The GW rep stated that they made changes based on the player bases "biggest concern" that games should be much shorter and now 90minutes or less was normal.

Not going to speak for the "community" but locally I can say no one considered 7th's length to be the main issue. Certainly getting it under 90 minutes was not even registering on the concern scale.

Now tournament players might want quicker games and certainly organisers would as shorter games more players and more revenue.

So given that apparently 8th has been built around a core based on the wishes of the minority of players, what would be a tournement organizers 2nd and 3rd biggest wishes so we might have an idea what else to expect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

Spoiler:

Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?

If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?

So wait, models in Reserves should be FREE?

Does that mean I can just pull a Warhound out of hammerspace?

Just to note. The advantage of summoning over normal reserve if that you set aside the points and then get to spend them based of the situation.

So in a tournament situation you could choose between units/equipment based on if your fighting marines or. Orks for example.

Pretty much this, provided it's a straight port of the AoS rules.

Rather than putting points aside for a specific unit, you get to choose what you summon when you cast. In essence, it's a more tactically flexible Deepstrike, as you can fit the unit to the situation.

Also like with PP games it encourages more sales to get a varied sideboard as well as your normal army not a bad thing but GW will not mind.

 Sarigar wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
I hope armor facings go away. That was another sometimes contentious part of the game.

Greet the age of vehicles moving side ways as it would be stupid not to.

That has existed in every edition since 3rd, but good try at snarkiness

Before you exposed weaker side to fire with that. Now there is zero drawback. Big difference.

You don't see difference between giving up survibality over no drawbacks whatsoever?