40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**tneva82**

Caederes wrote:
Here's the problem with your logic though. What actually killed vehicles in 7th Edition? Hull point removal, not kill shots. Removing kill shots from the game means it is less luck-oriented and - per your words - game-changing based on a single shot, and altering the way vehicles are harmed makes weapons that were previously spammed suddenly far less valuable. Yes, a Boltgun can contribute to killing a tank, but it's overall contribution is minuscule, and this will largely be the same of the weapons that populated the competitive meta - weapons that were too good at killing everything and so rendered dedicated anti-tank weapons useless. You're going to see more lascannons now even with the removal of that kill-shot chance.

And again, I'll point you to the Tyrannofex. Tyranids under the effects of Synapse are said to fight on even when near death. When you destroy a vehicle in one shot, it represents you getting a lucky shot on the engine or something to that effect. With a Tyrannofex, you're instead getting something like a piercing head-shot through that obliterates its brain. Alternatively, you can wear both the tank or the Tyrannofex down. While I'm no expert, from what I gather and contrary to what you're saying, it is possible to disable tanks - i.e. damaging treads, hitting exposed integral mechanisms, hitting an ammo feed or primed shell, etc - with small arms fire, but the chances are incredibly slim and so gradually wearing it down is an overly long and painful process. In the case of a Tyranid monster that will refuse to stop fighting until it is truly dead, one described as a living fortress like a Tyrannofex, can't you use a similar line of reasoning as to how you could slowly but surely whittle it down? It's the same with Wraithbone constructs that are essentially vehicles just like Dreadnoughts, yet in the game they have completely different rules and vulnerabilities compared to tanks. The Wraithbone constructs have pilots (in the case Wraithknights) and are fully enclosed armoured shells, just like the tanks, no? It's part of why it's never made any sense for Walkers and Monstrous Creatures in particular to have different rules, especially as there's seemingly no rhyme or reason as to why one is a Walker and one is a Monstrous Creature. Also, from a game balance perspective, it simplifies and more easily allows for differentiation between the units without breaking the logic of the game through wonky unit-specific rules (currently, Walkers are garbage compared to Monstrous Creatures).

Did I say 7th ed is perfect? I use it only for HH. For 40k we use rules where single lascannon has potential to destroy even _baneblade_. Actually short of nurgle daemon prince there's nothing lascannon CANNOT one shot. Tyrannofex? Not likely but possible.

I'm not one shot possible only for tanks. The 'thirster that just ripped itself out into reality ripping apart poor champion that gave his life looks lot less invincible beast when single lascannon(or multimelta for that matter) can threaten death.

**Caederes**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
My issue with everything can hurt everything is the "Might as well!" of it all.

In the rules we made ages ago we created a system for damaging and destroying buildings. Only certain weapons were good at it, but some weapons could do it on a lucky hit (memories of a Broadside bringing down a 4 story building full of Lootaz!).

The problem was it created a "Might as well!" situation for units that couldn't do anything that turn, so I ended up with a Techmarine taking pot shots at an empty building with a Plasma Pistol simply because he could, so he'd have something to do. It didn't make any sense that someone would just be wasting shots like that at a building, and I fear the same thing happening with this version of 40K

Except now it's "Well I've got these Guardians left, might as well shoot your Land Raider! They're not doing anything else!", except you don't see groups of infantry just unload onto an enemy vehicle with smallarms because they've got nothing better to do.

It doesn't sit well with me, and it's another way of reducing the role of positioning in the game.

"Put your Guardians in a bad position where they can't shred infantry? Fear not, fellow Aeldari™ player, just shoot at that Land Raider. You may get lucky, so why the feth not, right?"

No. That's stupid!

What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?

In those games, having most of your army be rendered entirely useless for anything but objective grabbing and tar-pitting is absolutely not fun. While boltguns and the like will still do little if anything to those types of models, having the ability to do *something* isn't nearly as morale crushing. It's like eating scraps versus not eating at all, it's a bad situation but at least in one of those scenarios you're not going to starve.

**Ragnar Blackmane**

Eyjio wrote:

You're also arguing realism for tanks, but nothing else. Do you think it would be a fun mechanic if characters couldn't use look out sir, on the grounds that it makes no sense to jump in front of a laser? How about if monstrous creatures could die to a lucky headshot? Maybe it'd be fun if flyers couldn't be shot by ground troops at all? You can't just say "oh, well they die to one shot in real life" and not apply the same logic to everything else. Of course, if you DID apply the same logic to everything, the game would be very dull as it degenerated into 5th edition but worse, aka expensive models are completely pointless because my 5 point guardsman does the same job. Every single game I can think to mention has a damage mechanic precisely because you need one to have any semblance of balance; you simply cannot make a Land Raider worth 200+ points if it dies like a 35 point Rhino to meltaguns - it's actually impossible. If you want to play a game like that, I don't even know where to point you - maybe flames of war, but I think even in that there's a damage mechanic. It's not, and has never been, like that in 40k. Not even when it was Rogue Trader, and absolutely not in 2nd ed.

+1

Caederes wrote:

What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?

Obviously the opponent is supposed to lose, pack up and go home because "realism", heh.
With that sort of realism only applying to vehicles, mind, just because

**Caederes**

tneva82 wrote:
Did I say 7th ed is perfect? I use it only for HH. For 40k we use rules where single lascannon has potential to destroy even _baneblade_. Actually short of nurgle daemon prince there's nothing lascannon CANNOT one shot. Tyrannofex? Not likely but possible.

I'm not one shot possible only for tanks. The 'thirster that just ripped itself out into reality ripping apart poor champion that gave his life looks lot less invincible beast when single lascannon(or multimelta for that matter) can threaten death.

If you're already house-ruling 7th Edition, why not just house-rule 8th Edition? The system can't be worse if you're changing it to suits your needs anyway

**Hollow**

tneva82 wrote:
Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.

Well, stick with 7th then.

I do find it encouraging that with each new piece of information released, people's perception and attempts to pigeon-hole and label the new edition swing wildly from one thing to the next. "Big blobs are back!" "It's all about MSU" "Small arms are too powerful" "Vehicles are now useless", these are all be fun little tangents... part and parcel of a discussion forum. What I find comforting about it so far, is that with each new attempt to lay out what somebody thinks might "rule this edition" is almost immediately countered with something that shows it ain't all that straightforward. If things continue this way then we are truly going to have the most balanced version of 40k ever, with pros and cons for all manner of builds and playstyles.

**tneva82**

Eyjio wrote:
Probably the worst possible example - Baneblades are almost never taken out in one shot, and have almost never been possible to take out in one shot barring extremely lucky successive rolls of 6.

Hit to hull, penetrate(unlikely but possible), anything but 1. Or hit sponson, penetrate, blow it up with 6 that causes secondary explosion to hull, 2+.

You're also arguing realism for tanks, but nothing else. Do you think it would be a fun mechanic if characters couldn't use look out sir, on the grounds that it makes no sense to jump in front of a laser?

That represents less jumping into and more impossibility of sniping characters like that. But yeah we don't actually have that. Of course no tanking in front either.

How about if monstrous creatures could die to a lucky headshot?

Lascannon shoots at 'thirster. Hits, wounds. Fails the save(9+ on 2d6 with 4+ unmodified as a backup). Lascannon rolls 2d6 for damage. All he needs is 10+ and bloodthirster dead.

Been there done that. I have one shotted carnifex 5 times during course of 4 turn game. Albeit the bloody thing was still standing at the end. Stupid regeneration.

**nintura**

I think we need to take the "Whining" title away from warseer. We have a new champion website.

**eedden**

Is this thread even moderated anymore or is insaniak just feeding the fire till it all burns down?

**Sidstyler**

I don't really see how it's stupid. Bolters really can't do gak to a vehicle at full strength, even if they theoretically could the effort you'd have to put in to take a vehicle out with strictly bolters (or lasguns, etc.) would make it kinda stupid to even try. But after the armor has been pelted by other high-powered weapons and it starts opening up weak spots, there's a chance they can hit something vulnerable and do a little extra damage.

In any case, if you've genuinely got nothing better to do with your infantry than shoot at tanks with their basic guns then you've probably already won in my opinion. Either that or you're fighting a list that's literally nothing but tanks so you have no other target...in which case I guess the "realistic" thing to do would be to forfeit the game?

**insaniak**

jamopower wrote:
That would be way too powerful. The "fake rumour" of not being able to target unless closest model or within 12" would be good..

That's how it worked in 4th edition. It made lone characters extremely vulnerable.

**Alpharius**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
My issue with everything can hurt everything is the "Might as well!" of it all.

In the rules we made ages ago we created a system for damaging and destroying buildings. Only certain weapons were good at it, but some weapons could do it on a lucky hit (memories of a Broadside bringing down a 4 story building full of Lootaz!).

The problem was it created a "Might as well!" situation for units that couldn't do anything that turn, so I ended up with a Techmarine taking pot shots at an empty building with a Plasma Pistol simply because he could, so he'd have something to do. It didn't make any sense that someone would just be wasting shots like that at a building, and I fear the same thing happening with this version of 40K

Except now it's "Well I've got these Guardians left, might as well shoot your Land Raider! They're not doing anything else!", except you don't see groups of infantry just unload onto an enemy vehicle with smallarms because they've got nothing better to do.

It doesn't sit well with me, and it's another way of reducing the role of positioning in the game.

"Put your Guardians in a bad position where they can't shred infantry? Fear not, fellow Aeldari™ player, just shoot at that Land Raider. You may get lucky, so why the feth not, right?"

No. That's stupid!

And it probably isn't going to help speed up games either!

**insaniak**

Caederes wrote:

What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?

This isn't something you fix by allowing everything to hurt everything else. It's something you fix by not writing rules allowing armies comprised entirely of models that render large portions of every other army useless space filler.

All-Knight armies should have only ever existed in the realm of prearranged scenarios, not as a standard codex list.

**jamopower**

tneva82 wrote:
jamopower wrote:
That would be way too powerful. The "fake rumour" of not being able to target unless closest model or within 12" would be good.

Say hello to buggies, land speeders etc sniping all minor characters quickly.

And the downside of that would be? I think that sounds quite interesting in game terms. Plus I wouldn't say that getting supposed ~5 wounds in a turn to a character with 3+/4+ save would be easy feat for a single land speeder/buggy and a squadron of them quickly costs as much as the character.

insaniak wrote:
jamopower wrote:
That would be way too powerful. The "fake rumour" of not being able to target unless closest model or within 12" would be good..

That's how it worked in 4th edition. It made lone characters extremely vulnerable.

I remember that, but I don't think the characters were super vulnerable then either. Though the los rules were bit better back then. And to be remembered is that the characters most probably will have more than 2 or 3 wounds and are not automatically killed by lascannon hits any more.

**Ghorros**

I'm hoping that Noise Marines work like the Kakophoni formation in Traitor Legions.

If they get 3 shots each, strength 5, with rerolls to wound, I will be a happy camper.

60 Noise Marines would get 180 shots against a Knight. 120 hits, 40 wounds, then shred tossing in another 26.66.

That would be enough to drop a Knight in a single round. Those sonic blasters will be death if they don't change.

**AlmightyWalrus**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
My issue with everything can hurt everything is the "Might as well!" of it all.

In the rules we made ages ago we created a system for damaging and destroying buildings. Only certain weapons were good at it, but some weapons could do it on a lucky hit (memories of a Broadside bringing down a 4 story building full of Lootaz!).

The problem was it created a "Might as well!" situation for units that couldn't do anything that turn, so I ended up with a Techmarine taking pot shots at an empty building with a Plasma Pistol simply because he could, so he'd have something to do. It didn't make any sense that someone would just be wasting shots like that at a building, and I fear the same thing happening with this version of 40K

Except now it's "Well I've got these Guardians left, might as well shoot your Land Raider! They're not doing anything else!", except you don't see groups of infantry just unload onto an enemy vehicle with smallarms because they've got nothing better to do.

It doesn't sit well with me, and it's another way of reducing the role of positioning in the game.

"Put your Guardians in a bad position where they can't shred infantry? Fear not, fellow Aeldari™ player, just shoot at that Land Raider. You may get lucky, so why the feth not, right?"

No. That's stupid!

As a hypothetical counter to that "might as well take potshots", wouldn't it be cool if firing out of cover lessened the effect of cover? That way, you'd have to choose between taking shots or hunkering down and you'd have to decide whether it's worth being more exposed in order to take shots at an enemy. You'd still have the ability to do a kamikaze run at an enemy tank, but there'd be a drawback.

**Caederes**

Backfire wrote:
You fell to exact same trap I pointed out in my earlier post - on the one hand, it's "great for gameplay" when every unit has chance to do something, on other hand, that chance is so miniscule it has no practical effect and thus doesn't destroy realism.

Which it is? You can't have it both ways. In 8th edition, your Pulse Rifle spam does NOTHING to those Land Raiders - just like in 7th. You may strip down couple of wounds, that is all. Unless you load up with EMP grenades...just like in 7th edition.

Lets be honest here: how many times you heard complaints of how an army couldn't hurt a Land Raider? How many times you heard complaints when an army couldn't hurt rerollable 2++ Deathstar?
In first instance, there was no theoretical chance to hurt the enemy unit, in second instance, there was. So Land Raiders were worse than 2+++ Deathstars....right??

You're missing my point.

Currently, I can wound a Tyrannofex with a Pulse Rifle. Did you know that it's more difficult to harm a Tyrannofex than a Dreadnought with a Pulse Rifle using the new rules? And yet, here's the catch, no-one ever complained that the Tyrannofex could be harmed by a Pulse Rifle and yet the Dreadnought couldn't (unless you got behind it). A Tyrannofex is described as a literal living fortress that is incredibly heavily armoured, yet somehow it was possible for a Pulse Rifle to harm it and NOT the Dreadnought? It makes zero sense. The chances of harming that Tyrannofex with Pulse Rifles...slim to none, just like with the new Dreadnought. Having a simplified system where everything can hurt anything just tidies up that core inconsistency between monstrous creatures and vehicles, i.e. why can I hurt a Wraithknight but not a freaking Dreadnought with my Pulse Rifle. Zero sense. New system? Much more sense.

The "hurt anything" system address the severe consistency problems between vehicles and monstrous creatures, especially when both things are described as nearly impossible to kill yet one can be hurt by small arms fire and not the other.

**Mr Morden**

Guys, guys

Some of us like the idea that wepaons can harm anythig , others hate it - that is more than clear.

None of us are going to convince the other.....

**Caederes**

Ghorros wrote:
I'm hoping that Noise Marines work like the Kakophoni formation in Traitor Legions.

If they get 3 shots each, strength 5, with rerolls to wound, I will be a happy camper.

60 Noise Marines would get 180 shots against a Knight. 120 hits, 40 wounds, then shred tossing in another 26.66.

That would be enough to drop a Knight in a single round. Those sonic blasters will be death if they don't change.

That depends on a few factors. We know that it has over two twenty wounds, but that's about it, right?
Assuming it has a 3+ save, it would survive your theoretical Noise Marine shooting if it had more than 22-23 Wounds, which is not unlikely.

Remember also that formations are gone and you'd be paying out the nose for rules like that. It's great that you have such high theoretical damage output, but what if those units eat up your entire points limit and are just as easy to kill as any other Space Marine? Not good.

**Eyjio**

tneva82, I have no idea what you're playing, but it's not 40k. If you house rule that heavily, then I'm sure you'll totally change 8e to your own whims as well. Nothing you've said has been in 40k for almost 2 decades, and in the case of some of them, they've never been in the game at all. Without meaning to seem snarky, I can;t see why you're complaining about rules for a new edition when you're not even using the rules in the first place.

**insaniak**

Caederes wrote:
Having a simplified system where everything can hurt anything just tidies up that core inconsistency between monstrous creatures and vehicles, i.e. why can I hurt a Wraithknight but not a freaking Dreadnought with my Pulse Rifle. Zero sense. New system? Much more sense.

A system where the pulse rifle couldn't hurt the monstrous creature would achieve the same thing.

**lessthanjeff**

Zustiur wrote:
I get why they've allowed everything to hurt everything. I don't particularly like it, but I'm willing to accept it. I just find it weird that a space marine has the same chance of hurting a tank as a grot. Or a snotling.
And it gets weirder when you look at things with greater than toughness 10. Against t14 a grot is as good as a plasma gun.

How do we know it's the same chance? I haven't seen a toughness value for tanks yet. If they're t7, for example, the grot needs a 6 to wound while the marine needs a 5+.

**MaxT**

Mr Morden wrote:
Guys, guys

Some of us like the idea that wepaons can harm anythig , others hate it - that is more than clear.

None of us are going to convince the other.....

And it's not going to change either. So if it's a deal breaker, it's probably better to move on now (or stick to 7th) and save yourselves the angst.

**Kanluwen**

insaniak wrote:
Caederes wrote:

What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?

This isn't something you fix but allowing everything to hurt everything else. It's something you fox by not writing rules allowing armies comprised entirely of models that render large portions of every other army useless space filler.

All-Knight armies should have only ever existed in the realm of prearranged scenarios, not as a standard codex list.

Putting it rather politely, I personally found that it was easier to deal with all Knight armies than it was to deal with quintuple Wraithknights.

You could bait Ion Shield facings extremely easily and start chipping away at hull points on the opposite facings.*
With Wraithknights, there was a very real possibility of not being able to take them out if they had Psyker support(let's be real; it's Eldar--how often was that not the case?) and you didn't have certain kinds of weapons(read: Grav).

GMCs, in my opinion, were a very real example of why it is necessary to do the "allow everything to hurt everything else". There were some armies in 7th that realistically had no way to cope with GMCs but could cope with SHVs.

"But Kan, that's a stupid statement--why would you claim that?"
Simple comparison:
Haywire versus Poisoned
Haywire weapons let you roll a Penetrating Hit just for hitting the vehicle. Superheavies did not get a protection against this. They got a protection from some of the results of the Penetrating Hit table, but would still lose a Hull Point.

Poisoned weapons, on the other hand, became a 6+ to Wound versus GMCs(unless the weapon's Strength would let it wound on a higher value--how often would that be the case with Poisoned weapons?). The exception being if the weapon had "Fleshbane" because GMC's "Unstoppable" special rule only applied to Poisoned weapons.

Pure Skitarii was not a pleasant experience against Eldar if a Wraithknight was on the field and you weren't packing tons of Onagers.
*--Admittedly this required you to be willing to spend time dickering about with prepping for hitting multiple facings with heavy enough firepower to chunk away at things. But it was totally doable. I played against an all Knight army a few times with pure Skitarii, and christ was that the time that a triple Transauranic Arquebi unit of Rangers paid for themselves as effectively as an all Arc Rifle Vanguard squad.

**Caederes**

insaniak wrote:
Caederes wrote:
Having a simplified system where everything can hurt anything just tidies up that core inconsistency between monstrous creatures and vehicles, i.e. why can I hurt a Wraithknight but not a freaking Dreadnought with my Pulse Rifle. Zero sense. New system? Much more sense.

A system where the pulse rifle couldn't hurt the monstrous creature would achieve the same thing.

Then you get too much of a skew towards the dedicated anti-tank weapons and the game becomes even more binary than it already is. Also, you using the Pulse Rifle to try to prove your point is a bad example, it's a Strength 5 gun; making it so something that powerful can't hurt monsters and tanks is silly.

If you play a game where most of your weapons literally can't do anything in a not-uncommon match-up, are you going to enjoy yourself?

Also, what Kanluwen said. There's a real problem with units in this game that render the majority or all of a codex utterly useless. Toning that down - even slightly - is a good way to fix this. Depending on how poison now works, Tyranids all of a sudden won't be so completely reliant on Flyrants to kill vehicles...yet have much less difficulty killing monsters. I'd rather consistent game design over what we have now.

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

Mr Morden wrote:
Guys, guys

Some of us like the idea that wepaons can harm anythig , others hate it - that is more than clear.

None of us are going to convince the other.....

This is like the AoS discussion all over again...

**jamopower**

I have a feeling that 8th edition will have a quite strong bias towards heavy weaponry, at least in the beginning as people will stock on those dreadnoughts etc. that will be very tough to kill without them.

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

jamopower wrote:
I have a feeling that 8th edition will have a quite strong bias towards heavy weaponry, at least in the beginning as people will stock on those dreadnoughts etc. that will be very tough to kill without them.

I actually believe we'll see mixed units to take on as many menaces as possible, since everyone can split fire now.

I am very curious as to how the other special weapons (meltas, gravs, plasma) will be working.

Edit: grammar.

**Alpharius**

At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.

**Breng77**

insaniak wrote:
Caederes wrote:

What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?

This isn't something you fix by allowing everything to hurt everything else. It's something you fix by not writing rules allowing armies comprised entirely of models that render large portions of every other army useless space filler.

All-Knight armies should have only ever existed in the realm of prearranged scenarios, not as a standard codex list.

These types of match-ups existed pre-knight though, where say one person brought all landraiders and you did not have much that could hurt them, or tons of Leman-Russes. Unless list building is extremely restrictive it is very hard to avoid the potential game where one person has a lot of units that cannot contribute meaningfully to the game. Fixing things by allowing all units to play a role (however meaningless) is better than allowing for models that can never be hurt.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Eyjio wrote:
Probably the worst possible example - Baneblades are almost never taken out in one shot, and have almost never been possible to take out in one shot barring extremely lucky successive rolls of 6.

Hit to hull, penetrate(unlikely but possible), anything but 1. Or hit sponson, penetrate, blow it up with 6 that causes secondary explosion to hull, 2+.

You're also arguing realism for tanks, but nothing else. Do you think it would be a fun mechanic if characters couldn't use look out sir, on the grounds that it makes no sense to jump in front of a laser?

That represents less jumping into and more impossibility of sniping characters like that. But yeah we don't actually have that. Of course no tanking in front either.

How about if monstrous creatures could die to a lucky headshot?

Lascannon shoots at 'thirster. Hits, wounds. Fails the save(9+ on 2d6 with 4+ unmodified as a backup). Lascannon rolls 2d6 for damage. All he needs is 10+ and bloodthirster dead.

Been there done that. I have one shotted carnifex 5 times during course of 4 turn game. Albeit the bloody thing was still standing at the end. Stupid regeneration.

So you are on here complaining about the rules, when you don't even use the current rules (at all). So for you nothing changes anyway so why bother.

**Vorian**

Alpharius wrote:
At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.

Totally depending on points