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.

"Looking through the comments, It's incredible how blatantly communicated information can be misinterpreted so easily. I don't envy whoever has to answer the same question about twinlinked heavy bolters over and over again."

This a hundred times over. It is amazing.

It was so utterly clear what twin linked meant. Are people just willingly trying to misinterpret what's being said? Stupidity? Blind irrationality? Trolling?

GW - "The sky is blue"

Neckbeard - "So everything that isn't the sky isn't blue?"

GW - "That's not what we said"

Neckbeard - "But you didn't NOT say that"

GW - "The sky is blue doesn't mean other things aren't also blue"

Neckbeard - "So all other things are blue?"

GW - "NO, some other things are blue"

Neckbeard - " and the Sky is blue?"

GW - "That's what we said!!"

Neckbeard - "Ok, it's not my fault you weren't very clear."

WTF

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Speaking of pricier, combi-weapons are also almost certainly going to get more expensive (by definition, as or more expensive than the special weapon they represent, since by default they can fire as that special weapon every single round in a way that is indistinguishable from simply having that special weapon, AND they have options beyond that).

I'm thinking they'll be the cost of the special weapon at least, if not a special weapon plus bolter combined.

They should cost as a bolter+special weapon+bonus. If you don't pay a bonus for the flexibility they offer, is just always better to have a combi weapon than just a special weapon.

 Rippy wrote:
I only have two of them in the OP, I will have a look and see.

It was from the comments on yesterday's articles. I had two posts with the stuff. I'll see if I can refind them since they were in that mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:
"Looking through the comments, It's incredible how blatantly communicated information can be misinterpreted so easily. I don't envy whoever has to answer the same question about twinlinked heavy bolters over and over again."

This a hundred times over. It is amazing.

It was so utterly clear what twin linked meant. Are people just willingly trying to misinterpret what's being said? Stupidity? Blind irrationality? Trolling?

GW - "The sky is blue"

Neckbeard - "So everything that isn't the sky isn't blue?"

GW - "That's not what we said"

Neckbeard - "But you didn't NOT say that"

GW - "The sky is blue doesn't mean other things aren't also blue"

Neckbeard - "So all other things are blue?"

GW - "NO, some other things are blue"

Neckbeard - " and the Sky is blue?"

GW - "That's what we said!!"

Neckbeard - "Ok, it's not my fault you weren't very clear."

WTF

The original article had a typo about TL being double shots at half range.

 Hollow wrote:
"Looking through the comments, It's incredible how blatantly communicated information can be misinterpreted so easily. I don't envy whoever has to answer the same question about twinlinked heavy bolters over and over again."

This a hundred times over. It is amazing.

It was so utterly clear what twin linked meant. Are people just willingly trying to misinterpret what's being said? Stupidity? Blind irrationality? Trolling?

No... the article originally said something different, and they changed it.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

As you say, points costs aren't going to stay the same. TL stuff will certainly get pricier in comparison to currently. We shall see!

I certainly hope so, because otherwise there is no reason to take a special weapon when there is an option for a Combi.

Considering that Boltguns aren't insanely good in the first place, I would expect more than 5 pts on the cost of a special weapon. As you said, beyond Sergeants, Sternguard, and Command Squads, Combi aren't available to the same models. I am glad I have modeled my Sternguard with Combi weapons rather than any special weapons (I don't give up Boltguns lightly because of Crimson Fists, but also SI Ammo made the Boltgun and Combi Weapon the more favorable choice).

 insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:


They should cost as a bolter+special weapon+bonus. If you don't pay a bonus for the flexibility they offer, is just always better to have a combi weapon than just a special weapon.

They do pay for the flexibility, with the To Hit penalty.

The To Hit penalty is only if you shoot both at the same time in the same turn, if not, you can choose what to shoot every turn. So no, it need to have a bonus on top of the price of the bolter+Special Weapon. But as bolters are free, basically just a price for being "combi"

 Grinshanks wrote:


Is it me or are just really not understanding people's worry about melee units not making it to combat? I mean it honestly doesn't matter what a melee weapon does if the units carrying are never going to make it across the table.

I honestly haven't seen anything that makes horde armies viable, just a lot that makes them worse.

If two heavy bolters does double the shots...then two ccws do...twice the attacks?

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grinshanks wrote:


Is it me or are just really not understanding people's worry about melee units not making it to combat? I mean it honestly doesn't matter what a melee weapon does if the units carrying are never going to make it across the table.

I honestly haven't seen anything that makes horde armies viable, just a lot that makes them worse.

If two heavy bolters does double the shots...then two ccws do...twice the attacks?

Could be possible. A full round of attacks from both at -1 to hit perhaps?

That said, I don't think the Pistol will serve as a CCW in the new edition, so likely no bonus attacks there.

Yeah, but you still get to shoot it in the shooting phase while engaged so......

 Leth wrote:
Yeah, but you still get to shoot it in the shooting phase while engaged so......

Which helps lower strength models equipped with special pistols out, but not really anyone else.

Battle Cannons are Heavy now. I guess that means Ordnance is kicking the bucket, and I'm quite happy about it. Although it appears new melta damage is kind of like how Ordnance worked.

Overall, I'm quite pleased with what I saw from these new weapon profiles. Combi weapons are actually useful by the looks of it, so I'm happy for those who actually get them. Heavy Bolters were exactly what I thought they'd be, although melta at -4 AP is a little stronger than my guess of -3. I guess doubling shots was the best way to say "almost the same as Twin Linked" without having any USRs.

Overall, happy with the changes shown today.

 Leth wrote:
Yeah, but you still get to shoot it in the shooting phase while engaged so......

Very true. I'm just wondering if the chainsword might become standard wargear for more models since they don't have CCWs now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Yeah, but you still get to shoot it in the shooting phase while engaged so......

Which helps lower strength models equipped with special pistols out, but not really anyone else.

It buffed Plasma Pistols, but you're right. S3 models with S4+ pistols got a buff there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Yeah, but you still get to shoot it in the shooting phase while engaged so......

Very true. I'm just wondering if the chainsword might become standard wargear for more models since they don't have CCWs now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Yeah, but you still get to shoot it in the shooting phase while engaged so......

Which helps lower strength models equipped with special pistols out, but not really anyone else.

It buffed Plasma Pistols, but you're right. S3 models with S4+ pistols got a buff there.

We still haven't seen whether or not Gets Hot is still a thing. In some cases, the extra basic attack would be better than the probability of putting a wound on yourself. Especially in the case of higher strength models.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Yeah, but you still get to shoot it in the shooting phase while engaged so......

Very true. I'm just wondering if the chainsword might become standard wargear for more models since they don't have CCWs now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Yeah, but you still get to shoot it in the shooting phase while engaged so......

Which helps lower strength models equipped with special pistols out, but not really anyone else.

It buffed Plasma Pistols, but you're right. S3 models with S4+ pistols got a buff there.

We still haven't seen whether or not Gets Hot is still a thing. In some cases, the extra basic attack would be better than the probability of putting a wound on yourself. Especially in the case of higher strength models.

It may still be risky, but as far as I can tell Plasma is still looking reasonably useful. We'll see for sure in the future if it's actually true though.

 Megaknob wrote:

Orks are getting 2 wounds confirmed.

Which would make sense from a fluff perspective; one wound to the brain, then another in a vital area.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It may still be risky, but as far as I can tell Plasma is still looking reasonably useful. We'll see for sure in the future if it's actually true though.

A lot of plasma's usefulness will be predicated on what grav does in this edition I think.

Grav stole a lot of plasma's high-damage/good AP mojo against all the targets that mattered (because who cares if plasma is better at killing things with 4+ armour or worse?).

If grav still steals the show, then plasma will continue to suck on units that have the option of either grav or plasma. If grav gets given a distinct role, then plasma may not need to lose 'Gets Hot' to compensate, though I do think the rule will need to get re-designed given how it interacts with multi-hits.

I think the OP is up to date with all information now I have ClockworkZion's facebook summaries added (I may have missed a couple of pages of this thread). Please personal message me if I missed anything, or if you think something should be added!

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It may still be risky, but as far as I can tell Plasma is still looking reasonably useful. We'll see for sure in the future if it's actually true though.

A lot of plasma's usefulness will be predicated on what grav does in this edition I think.

Grav stole a lot of plasma's high-damage/good AP mojo against all the targets that mattered (because who cares if plasma is better at killing things with 4+ armour or worse?).

If grav still steals the show, then plasma will continue to suck on units that have the option of either grav or plasma. If grav gets given a distinct role, then plasma may not need to lose 'Gets Hot' to compensate, though I do think the rule will need to get re-designed given how it interacts with multi-hits.

There might be design space to give Grav a bonus against targets with a base wound value over x to dilineate the difference, so Plasma gets to be good at killing the small tough stuff, and Grav the big things.

 Galas wrote:


The To Hit penalty is only if you shoot both at the same time in the same turn, if not, you can choose what to shoot every turn. So no, it need to have a bonus on top of the price of the bolter+Special Weapon. But as bolters are free, basically just a price for being "combi"

Aside from combi-flamers (due to range), the situations where you would choose to shoot the bolter instead of the attached weapon are fairly limited.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:


The To Hit penalty is only if you shoot both at the same time in the same turn, if not, you can choose what to shoot every turn. So no, it need to have a bonus on top of the price of the bolter+Special Weapon. But as bolters are free, basically just a price for being "combi"

Aside from combi-flamers (due to range), the situations where you would choose to shoot the bolter instead of the attached weapon are fairly limited.

Less so for Sternguard, but true enough.

Given GW's hardon for upgrade costs in intervals of 5, though, I suspect it'll be Special Weapon Cost +5 points per upgrade.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It may still be risky, but as far as I can tell Plasma is still looking reasonably useful. We'll see for sure in the future if it's actually true though.

A lot of plasma's usefulness will be predicated on what grav does in this edition I think.

Grav stole a lot of plasma's high-damage/good AP mojo against all the targets that mattered (because who cares if plasma is better at killing things with 4+ armour or worse?).

If grav still steals the show, then plasma will continue to suck on units that have the option of either grav or plasma. If grav gets given a distinct role, then plasma may not need to lose 'Gets Hot' to compensate, though I do think the rule will need to get re-designed given how it interacts with multi-hits.

There might be design space to give Grav a bonus against targets with a base wound value over x to dilineate the difference, so Plasma gets to be good at killing the small tough stuff, and Grav the big things.

S = to Target's wound profile but no Rend?

I was thinking more "if target's W characteristic >x, this weapon does D3/D6/whatever damage" but yours works too.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:


The To Hit penalty is only if you shoot both at the same time in the same turn, if not, you can choose what to shoot every turn. So no, it need to have a bonus on top of the price of the bolter+Special Weapon. But as bolters are free, basically just a price for being "combi"

Aside from combi-flamers (due to range), the situations where you would choose to shoot the bolter instead of the attached weapon are fairly limited.

Is there really any situation where firing both weapons isn't the better option? Especially in the case of Space Marines where you are still hitting half of the time, but you get one or more extra shots. In the case of Plasma and Grav, you double the number of shots you fire.

I still fully expect Grav to wound on the Target's Armor Save. I don't know if it really needs to be Rend -3 though.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:


The To Hit penalty is only if you shoot both at the same time in the same turn, if not, you can choose what to shoot every turn. So no, it need to have a bonus on top of the price of the bolter+Special Weapon. But as bolters are free, basically just a price for being "combi"

Aside from combi-flamers (due to range), the situations where you would choose to shoot the bolter instead of the attached weapon are fairly limited.

Is there really any situation where firing both weapons isn't the better option? Especially in the case of Space Marines where you are still hitting half of the time, but you get one or more extra shots. In the case of Plasma and Grav, you double the number of shots you fire.

With Melta, against a larger target with lots of wounds and a good armor save, the -1 to hit on the melta is likely not made up by 2 bolter shots.

For most situations, though, I'd imagine the extra bolter shot or two is probably mathematically worthwhile.

I still fully expect Grav to wound on the Target's Armor Save. I don't know if it really needs to be Rend -3 though.

Reducing the Rend to -2 (instead of the straight conversion to -3) would make the choice between Grav and Plasma a choice again...

The worst thing about Grav is his cost in points. If it is "better"; but expensive enough to make it a real choice, it can work.
The problem is when is just better, and cheap.

 Azreal13 wrote:
There might be design space to give Grav a bonus against targets with a base wound value over x to dilineate the difference, so Plasma gets to be good at killing the small tough stuff, and Grav the big things.

Could be, but "big stuff" is now one homogenous lump in 8th edition that comprises vehicles and monstrous creatures that pushes it in to melta's domain.

Looking at 2nd Edition isn't a huge help. Back then it ignored armour, and models hit were immobilized for the rest of the game. It was also a small (1") blast, but that barely counts as a blast.

My uneducated guess?

Graviton Weapons
Grav Pistol: Pistol 1, Range 8", Strength *, AP *, Damage 1
Grav Gun: Assault 1, Range 16", Strength *, AP *, Damage d3
Grav Cannon: Heavy 1, Range 24", Strength *, AP *, Damage d6

* - When a grav weapon hits, it will deal a number of Mortal Wounds equal to its damage on a roll of 5+.

So this represents it immobilizing folks under crushing weight and models the 2nd Edition mechanics pretty well (albeit with an extra "to-wound" roll so as to give it some target precedence).

Against T8 and lower, a meltagun will usually perform better (barring invuln saves, because grav ignores that). An at T9 within half-range melta is likely still doing more wounds.

But further out or T10 and above? Grav starts to do pretty well for itself. It means that grav deals well with high-toughness units with good saves while not dealing well with mid-range stuff and not outshining melta in the mid to mid-high tougnesses (where a lot of heavier tanks appear to be sitting). This means grav is effective against heavy tanks, really big monstrous creatures, and super-heavy vehicles of T9 and higher. And in a pinch, tough units still wont enjoy getting hit by these things but they will remain a lot less reliable against such units and are a complete waste against anything T4 or lower.

Not sure if I like my 100% hypothetical conjecture still, but it at least makes it do something different, it would still need to be quite expensive though (mortal wounds shouldn't be cheap). I guess we'll have to wait and see what GW does with it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
S = to Target's wound profile but no Rend?

Considering that stats are uncapped now... that's elegant! I kind of hope it's this now (instead of a using armour save or a 4+ or 5+ to wound).

So datasheets tomorrow...presumably the Rubrics they mentioned. Should be interesting to see if it shows how upgrades are purchased and so on.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:

Orks are getting 2 wounds confirmed.

Which would make sense from a fluff perspective; one wound to the brain, then another in a vital area.

Is this jokes, or rumours? Would be crazy if true.

 Jambles wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:

Orks are getting 2 wounds confirmed.

Which would make sense from a fluff perspective; one wound to the brain, then another in a vital area.

Is this jokes, or rumours? Would be crazy if true.

Yes.

So... that Meltagun profile. The whole Melta special rule is written out on its profile. They're not going to do that for every single instance of the Meltagun where ever its printed, are they?