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.

40k is not, nor has ever been sci fi.... even space opera is a stretch. It's space grimdark fantasy

 kestral wrote:
40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.

Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.

Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?

MaxT wrote:
More likely that Space Marines lose their Bolt Pistols by default !

Hopefully not or Sisters might loose theirs as well!

Backfire wrote:

 kestral wrote:
40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.

Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.

Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?

I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.

If I bring a leman russ I expect it to be a major threat not something a bunch of grots can destroy.

 Lobukia wrote:
40k is not, nor has ever been sci fi.... even space opera is a stretch. It's space grimdark fantasy

I don't know where this comment comes from, as it is pretty random, but this is just semantics.

 Rippy wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
40k is not, nor has ever been sci fi.... even space opera is a stretch. It's space grimdark fantasy

I don't know where this comment comes from, as it is pretty random, but this is just semantics.

It's also kinda pointless hair-splitting. like saying 'nuh-uh it's not music, it's neo-post modern alt-ska'

It's Bespoke pedantry!

Star Wars is space opera, not sci-fi.

Star Trek is space League of Nations, not sci-fi.

Barbarella is Space Stripper, not sci-fi.

2001: A Space Odessey is a boring AF Space Music recital, not sci-fi.

 Shuma-Gorath wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 kestral wrote:
40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.

Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.

Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?

I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.

If I bring a leman russ I expect it to be a major threat not something a bunch of grots can destroy.

Fair enough I don't think there will be a justification that will suit you for this - it may change in a year or so after release but it might not.

Personally I am happy with it - everything can hurt everything yes, but its not like there is an equal chance of doing so

So those Grots will be trying to get past the Leman Russ toughness of what 8, 9 or 10? then its armour save of maybe 2+ or 3+.

Its not impossible but its not likely - you might do very minor cosmetic damage to a undamaged Russ but if one is limping around, torn open by heavy weapons fire and half destroyed - then they might do something significant.

It also means that potentially there is always a chance for units to do something - no matter what you have left on the table.

 Shuma-Gorath wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 kestral wrote:
40K has, at times, had its own internal realism. Forgeworld, is, or was, at times, pretty "Realistic". Clearly 40K is moving away from wargaming and towards video gaming for it's inspiration, and I think it is fair to lament that if you liked a solid dose of WWII movies with your space elves.

Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.

Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?

I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.

If I bring a leman russ I expect it to be a major threat not something a bunch of grots can destroy.

The only way a grot can destroy a tank is if they are really, really lucky.
Sort of how there's a minuscule chance that a revolver bullet might hit something important in a tank.
Especially if that tank has already been ravaged by anti-tank weapons and might now have big, gaping weak points.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The only way a grot can destroy a tank is if they are really, really lucky.
Sort of how there's a minuscule chance that a revolver bullet might hit something important in a tank.
Especially if that tank has already been ravaged by anti-tank weapons and might now have big, gaping weak points.

Problem isn't unlikely scenario of grots destroying undamaged russ by themselves. Problem is having ability to even hurt in a first place it shouldn't have.

Grots shoot, knock of wound. Your "might have big gaping weak points" doesn't even apply here. Or do the gaps appear out of future somehow conveniently?

Lascannon hits, finishes of. Without grot wound that wouldn't have happened.

That is something that should not happen if game doesnt' want to break all sense of disbelief.

Ah well. Won't happen in our games and even if I go to tournament I won't be even rolling those attacks regardless of situation.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

The only way a grot can destroy a tank is if they are really, really lucky.
Sort of how there's a minuscule chance that a revolver bullet might hit something important in a tank.
Especially if that tank has already been ravaged by anti-tank weapons and might now have big, gaping weak points.

But what's the point then if for sake of realism something has to be made so unlikely it's hardly ever going to happen? Seems to me it is only going to add relatively pointless dice-rolling for miniscule chance of something actually happening. That was, after all, one of the grievances of 7th edition - too much stupid rules like Soul Blaze or Mysterious objectives where you rolled dice for some effect which usually wasn't going to do anything.

When Germans first met KV-1's, their reaction was not to shoot it bit more with Kar98's. No, they tried to assault it with satchel charges, or flank it with tanks, or bring in more powerful anti-tank guns, etc.

Could we stop "discussing" the Lasguns That Obliterate Superheavies nonsense? I really don't think that a whole army focus-firing a single tank with small arms fire for five turns to maybe destroy it at the end of the game is a viable tactic, to say the least. What about cover? Range? LOS? The fact that the enemy most likely has several other units that remain unscathed in the meantime? Objectives?

Anyway, I'm really curious about the IC stuff. Not that DE care much about their ability to join units and such, though I definitely would like to know what my badass Biker Chaos Lord can or cannot do in this brave new edition.

I suppose you can come up with ways a vehicle could be damaged by small arms fire.

Some of the top of my head:

Bullets tearing the mounted hoses to lascannons or their barrels, causing damage when attempting to fire.

Exhaust systems and or air intakes becoming inoperable and choking the engine.

Life support systems being compromised, so many small lasers firing at the the vehicle cause it overheat and detonate fuel, or cook the crew, or concussive force debilitating them

Sensors being destroyed on the vehicle so it's no longer able to participate.

 SarisKhan wrote:
Could we stop "discussing" the Lasguns That Obliterate Superheavies nonsense? I really don't think that a whole army focus-firing a single tank with small arms fire for five turns to maybe destroy it at the end of the game is a viable tactic, to say the least.

Problem isn't lasguns taking out land raiders here and there on their own. Problem is a) total lack of believability which destroys suspense of disbelief(btw you don't automatically have that by having dragons etc so don't bother taking that arqument...Funny that but you can have fantasy AND realism at the same time) and b) can have big effect it shouldn't have. It's possible to have game decided by _one_ wound that goes through early in the game. Which then blows out all suspense of disbelief.

 Shuma-Gorath wrote:
If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.

It's certainly realistic. It also makes for an awful gaming scenario in any system that wants to make a hundred grots with revolvers a viable option.

The new vehicle rules are an attempt at balancing a diverse range of options better than the old system did. Given a choice between balance and realism, I'll always pick balance.

There's an entire entry about ways infantry take out tanks on wikipedia if the realism is what bothers you. I always thought tanks were fairly susceptible to infantry getting to them which is why they usually have to be supported by infantry to keep enemy infantry away.

"Infantry close assault

The tank is still vulnerable to infantry, especially in close country or built-up areas. Rough terrain may expose the floor armor, and high ground such as multi-story buildings may expose the top armor. Their large size and loud noise can allow enemy infantry to spot, track and evade tanks until an opportunity presents itself for counter-attack.

Because tank crews have limited visibility from inside the tank, infantry can get close to a tank given enough concealment and if the hatches are closed. If tank crewmen unbutton for better visibility they become vulnerable to small arms fire, grenades and molotov cocktails. An infantryman cannot be targeted by a tank's main gun when close, as it cannot depress sufficiently. Close defense weapons such as pistol ports, hull-, coaxial- and pintle-mounted machine guns gave them some protection however.

Whilst many hand-held infantry anti-tank weapons will not penetrate the front armor of a tank, they may penetrate the less heavily armored top, rear, and sides. Anti-tank weapons can damage the tracks or running gear to inflict a mobility kill. Early WWII tanks had open vision slits which could be fired through to kill the crew. Later tanks' slits had thick glass, as well as sights and periscopes which could still be damaged with powerful small arms such as anti-tank rifles and heavy machine guns, hampering the crew. If all else fails, the hatch could also be forced open and grenades thrown inside, although later tank designs often have hatches designed to be difficult to open from the outside.

Tanks were also vulnerable to hand-placed anti-tank mines. Infantry have even immobilized tanks using a set of plates covered with leaves and dirt as dummy mines – the ruse being augmented by the crew's obscured vision – infantry can then attack the stopped tank. This tactic was taught to the British Home Guard during World War II since they were not often provided with long-range anti-tank weapons.[13]

In some cases in World War II, a tactic of some infantry was to run directly up to a tank, avoiding their main and machine guns, and pour petrol over and into the tank and light it, sometimes blocking the exit, burning the crew alive.[citation needed]

In the Japanese army, the use of satchel charges and pole charges was widespread. Although the charges could knock out any allied tank, the tactic was extremely close-range and the sappers were vulnerable to allied weapons."

double post

Shuma-Gorath wrote:I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.

If I bring a leman russ I expect it to be a major threat not something a bunch of grots can destroy.

I can recognise the issue here, but there's three things to note:
1) The chance to kill a tank is really, really small. Like, less chance than killing a Riptide small. Grots aren't going to be a threat.
2) It's a design choice to make the game easier to learn. The practicality of it is that there's very little reason to fire small arms at a tank, but the chance existing means you can try last ditch efforts. You still won't want to be wasting those shots under normal circumstances.
3) The "average" gun in 40k is basically a miniature grenade launcher, and it still takes several hundreds of shots to kill a walker. It's not the least realistic thing - most tanks wouldn't want to be hit by ~500 grenades.

Backfire wrote:Exactly. One thing which I hate in most RTS games is that heavy units are often "whittled" down by surrounding them with lesser units until they run out of hit points. Flanks, direction, damage type, none of this matters, it is just a matter of simple DPS. I find this very boring damage modelling, and 8ed is moving towards it.

Some people defend "everything can hurt everything" -model with contradictory statements: on the one hand,it's supposedly more 'balanced', yet on other hand, they point out how extremely unlikely it is to damage battle tank with Lasguns. So, how it is? If practical chances of damage is tiny, how it is helping balance in any way? Just giving some theoretical chance to hurt something is hardly balanced. There was also theoretical chance to hurt rerollable 2++ deathstars with Lasguns, how that worked out?

For the second point, I think you're confusing arguments. The point is that, normally, it's a terrible idea to fire small arms at a tank, as you will do nearly nothing. However, the change means that super unbalanced lists are marginally weaker because wounds can be chipped off, even if it's not ideal. No-one is pretending you can skip anti-tank weapons, merely that the game is more "balanced" on the merits that unbalanced lists took a, albeit small, hit.

As for the RTS thing, I'm afraid I don't get this contention at all. Damage/wound tracking has literally been in the game for as long as I can remember playing 40k; the sole exception was vehicles, and I'm really not sad about moving away from the 5e system where open topped trucks could be merrily shake off nuclear bombs after being damaged. The idea that flanking and damage type don't matter in an RTS is flat out wrong - almost all RTS tactics rely on these exact things. Likewise, in 8th, I have no idea how you got the notion that flanking or that damage type won't matter - do you intend to allow your opponents to always get cover saves (which now make marines twice as durable against small arms), never push for objectives and hope that they don't bring either hordes or tanks? Unless your battle plan is bringing 500 bolters per enemy vehicle, I can't imagine that you'll find much success in that. As far as I can tell, the only thing we've actually lost is vehicle facings, and in return we gained a functional cover system where all units benefit - seems like positioning will matter more than ever to me.

Isn't there a wrist mounted strength 10 gun in necrons?
Aren't there strength 8 ap1 weapons in most armies?
There are strength 10 and strength D assault weapons scattered around as well.

Let's not pretend there aren't super powered small arms all over the game.

tneva82 wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
Could we stop "discussing" the Lasguns That Obliterate Superheavies nonsense? I really don't think that a whole army focus-firing a single tank with small arms fire for five turns to maybe destroy it at the end of the game is a viable tactic, to say the least.

Problem isn't lasguns taking out land raiders here and there on their own. Problem is a) total lack of believability which destroys suspense of disbelief(btw you don't automatically have that by having dragons etc so don't bother taking that arqument...Funny that but you can have fantasy AND realism at the same time) and b) can have big effect it shouldn't have. It's possible to have game decided by _one_ wound that goes through early in the game. Which then blows out all suspense of disbelief.

a) So you find it more believeable that a tank rocks up, and everyone just looks at it and does nothing? Because that is current rules. Yeah, it is more stupid than everyone giving everything they have to bring it down

b) At the moment, tanks can be blown up with one shot much more likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Isn't there a wrist mounted strength 10 gun in necrons?
Aren't there strength 8 ap1 weapons in most armies?
There are strength 10 and strength D assault weapons scattered around as well.

Let's not pretend there aren't super powered small arms all over the game.

We don't know if these will remain in 8th though.

I wonder if they'll drop vehicle explosions. Looking at the way they're simplifying I'd guess yes.

 obsidianaura wrote:
I wonder if they'll drop vehicle explosions. Looking at the way they're simplifying I'd guess yes.

I don't think there is a vehicle damage table anymore, as well as glancing or penetrating hits, due to the degenerating effects. Though this is yet to be 100%

 Rippy wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
I wonder if they'll drop vehicle explosions. Looking at the way they're simplifying I'd guess yes.

I don't think there is a vehicle damage table anymore, as well as glancing or penetrating hits, due to the degenerating effects. Though this is yet to be 100%

I can see them making an entry for this on the general rules' vehicle section. Kinda like "after a vehicle is destroyed roll a d6, on a <insert whatever roll needed> roll there is an explosion that hits all models in a Y radius for X damage."

 Rippy wrote:
a) So you find it more believeable that a tank rocks up, and everyone just looks at it and does nothing? Because that is current rules. Yeah, it is more stupid than everyone giving everything they have to bring it down

Who says they are doing nothing? It just doesn't help anything even if you imagine them shooting. you can of course actually roll dice if you want them to do something. That's actually what is happening but most just quicken play by not rolling them.

That or they are taking cover facing something they cannot hurt

Lasgun penetrating the front armour of a leman russ and blowing it up - more or less impossible

Lasgun shot knocking out the optics, an exposed power cable, a turned-out driver, etc - very unlikely, but likely enough that if a whole army of lasguns is firing at a tank for an entire game it would probably happen

I *really* don't see what the problem is

I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.

2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.

It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.


Really looking forward to see what the score is regarding characters though. I'm guessing they won't join units but they can still affect them, hide beside them and hitch lifts with them.

In the old edition most weapons could hurt a leman russes av10-11 rear i see no issue. It was never a durable tank.
Furthermore Titans will still have regenerating power fields/void shields and IWND likely still exist making small arm fire immunity still existant.

I'm hoping they can still join units, but maximum one character per unit (with some exceptions such as the necron royal court).

I believe they already said they cannot join units. Not sure how I like that. Maybe only characters can target characters?

Hollow, there is really no reason to insult people who have a different view than you.