Astra Militarum 8th ed. Discussion and Rumor Roundup

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.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

ross-128 wrote:It seems like it would be hard for the difference to be as little as 0.25 unless you're assuming 100% accuracy on the old BC.

Let's say we're looking at a 60mm MC base. GW lists base sizes in diameter, so that's a 30mm radius or 1.18". The large blast template is a 5" diameter, so 2.5" radius.

So, we need to scatter by less than 3.68" in order to hit. So 3" or less is a hit, 4" or more is a miss. Plus 33% for the two hit results on the scatter dice.

We are applying our BS to reduce the scatter, so on the 2d6 roll it's a hit on 7+. Conveniently, that's exactly 50% on a 2d6. 50% out of our 66% chance of getting a scatter result in the first place is 33%, so conveniently that's a 66% chance of hitting.

Though, of course, anything that scatters in the roughly 180 degrees facing your opponent's board edge will probably hit *something*, just not your original target. I'm definitely going to miss being able to do that.

Anyway, for now we're looking at about a 66% chance of hitting (your original target). Let's say they're T7. So you wound on 3+, then they don't get a save because most MCs are 3+ save. You have a 4/9 chance of doing just one wound, and a 5/9 chance of doing nothing at all.

Where as on the new BC, it looks like for whatever target you were using you only have a 45% chance of doing nothing, a ~12% chance of doing one wound, a ~14% chance of two wounds, a ~16% chance of three wounds, a 5% chance of four wounds, and then an increasingly trivial chance of more than four.

So you're going to be wounding at all more consistently, and on a successful wound your two most common results will be two or three wounds. It's no wunderwaffen, but that is a non-trivial improvement against an MC.

The catch, of course, is I'm expecting the extra wounds MCs and vehicles are getting will pretty much completely offset it.

Current MC's are T6. Carnifex, Riptide, Trygon, Tervigon, etc. which the Battle Tank wounds on a two now and on a 3 next edition.

Save the Carnifex, all of those are on big oval bases.

Vaktathi wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Powerfists are dramatically less effective, absolutely, but Lascannons should be dramatically more effective and I'm not sure how your math is coming to another conclusion.

Looking at the Lascannon (again because I dont have the melta stats in front of me) it's wounding on 3's instead of shooting for 5's (doubling damage output alone right there). The tank gets a save but only a 6+. 3HP vs 12 Wounds should be about identical againdt a weapon doing an average of 3.5 Wounds vs 1 HP.

As such, there should be no reason why a Lascannon is less effective in 8E aside from the Explodes result chance to plink the tank in one hit, which is 1/36 for any single Lascannon hit in 7E (and again, only relevant for the firet two HP's anyway) and too low to offset that average significantly.

Because the average number of wounds inflicted tells you very little, actually.

It's not a bell curve, it's some weird stepped distribution, and a long "tail" skews the average.

And, if you look at the Devastator's graph I plotted, it looks like the average percent of the Leman Russ Destroyed per shooting attack is higher and chance of total failure is lower. Devastators may be marginally better, but not by a whole lot. The distribution is pretty much the same.

Apologies if I misread something there on the Lascannons, but they should be notably more effective, doubling the wound output (wounding on 3's instead of 5's), while keeping the "wounds" almost the same when compared with the average Damage (multiplying wounds vs HP by 4 and Damage vs HP lost by an average of 3.5) and only a 1/6 chance to save, which should fundamentally result in notably, not marginally, higher kill rates with that weapon.

Given the flat variability of D6 rolls (as opposed to something like 2d6 or 2d3) and the static number of HP's and Wounds in each example, the variance shouldn't be all *that* weird.

I'll see if I can try it once I'm home from work and not fiddling on a phone, I can look up the melta stats then too. Hrm...

I just set up excel files using random number generators.

Meltas are 2D6B1 for damage, AP -4.

I'm also accounting for the entire squad of guns.

**ross-128**

Wow, just 4 points for Guardsmen? Those are also an amazing buff for Go! Go! Go!, from two re-rolls on their run to an entire extra movement phase! Practically don't even need Chimeras with an order like that.

It definitely looks like the biggest question for IG vehicles is not how they stack up to other vehicles... it's how will they stack up to IG infantry?

I mean... I remember when Conscripts were 4 points. 4 points for BS3 infantry? May the Emperor have mercy on my enemies, for I will not.

**SeraphimXIX**

Galas wrote:
If other vehicles are worse... maybe the power level is changing, and thats makes by relation the Leman Russ more powerfull and optimal for its point cost?
Maybe the Leman Russ in 8th is a unusable pile of garbage. But being even cheaper than in 7th is a big deal in 8th with all the big price hikes everything is having.

The power level is changing for vehicles, maybe. But it isn't changing appreciably. Vehicles that aren't knights or some other crazy superheavy aren't worth taking over monstrous creatures and the various forms of infantry pre-8th, because the amount of damage they do isn't worth the points that they cost. Sooo how is that issue addressed if vehicles cost the same (or more) and their offensive capabilities is not significantly improved.

Your post is basically saying that it's okay for tanks to not be worth taking in your army because vehicles from other factions aren't worth taking either.

ross-128 wrote:
Wow, just 4 points for Guardsmen? Those are also an amazing buff for Go! Go! Go!, from two re-rolls on their run to an entire extra movement phase! Practically don't even need Chimeras with an order like that.

It definitely looks like the biggest question for IG vehicles is not how they stack up to other vehicles... it's how will they stack up to IG infantry?

I mean... I remember when Conscripts were 4 points. 4 points for BS3 infantry? May the Emperor have mercy on my enemies, for I will not.

Yeah, and vets are only 6 points. The disparity in points-efficiency is staggering.

**Galas**

I'm not saying that in any shape or form. I was comparing Leman Russes to other vehicles. If vehicles are bad in this edition compared with other type of units was a point I didn't adressed.

I'm saying that in a edition where other vehicles are going up in point costs, remaining the same for Leman Russes is a huge "buff" for IG. If that buff is enough to make them viable, I don't know. But is nonsensical to say that is something irrelevant.

**Formerly Wu**

aim! reroll to hit rolls of 1 for the target unit

first row second row fire! all lasguns and high energy lasguns are rapidfire 2 for the target unit

destroy it! reroll to wound rolls of 1 for the target unit

onward for the emperor! the target unit may fire even if it advanced this turn

get a grip! the target unit may fire, even if it disengaged from combat

go go go! instead of firing, the target unit may move as if it is its movement phase. cant assault though

get the bajonett! may only issued to units within 1" of a enemy, the target unit may attack as if it is the close combat phase

Guessing there's translation issues on the names there. Onwards seems strictly better than Go Go Go, unless you *really* need those extra few inches. I'm not sure why you would want to use Bayonet over disengage/Get a Grip, unless there's something we're not seeing here.

rough riders are 10 points with gear (8 base lance is 2)
can come from the side of the board at the end of any movement phase with 7" range up to 9" from the enemy. can assault of course.
their lances are s5 ap -2 dmg d3

The wording there is confusing. What does the 7" range mean? It can't be their movement if they're appearing at the end of the phase.

**ross-128**

Well, Ogryns can take orders too.

I do think that we probably won't get many opportunities to use Fix Bayonets! though. If we charge someone we can win in melee with (so... Tau, pretty much), they're just going to fall back before we get to our next shooting phase to issue the order. If we're fighting someone who's good enough at melee that they actually want to stay, well then they'll probably shred those poor Guardsmen and we'll be the ones wanting to fall back.

The window where we have both the opportunity and desire to stay in melee for Fix Bayonets is... rather small. Though if those guardsmen are trapped by an ability like No Escape, or you are deliberately sacrificing them to tarpit a unit that is stronger than them, Fix Bayonets might be a good way for those guardsmen to give them the middle finger before they die.

Being able to fall back and then order that unit to shoot anyway is great though.

**SeraphimXIX**

Galas wrote:
I'm not saying that in any shape or form. I was comparing Leman Russes to other vehicles. If vehicles are bad in this edition compared with other type of units was a point I didn't adressed.

I'm saying that in a edition where other vehicles are going up in point costs, remaining the same for Leman Russes is a huge "buff" for IG. If that buff is enough to make them viable, I don't know. But is nonsensical to say that is something irrelevant.

I mean, it's a non sequitur man. Like the definition of one. If the context of the discussion is "Can I take Leman Russ in my army and not feel like I'm wasting points", the points costs of other vehicles from other factions really doesn't matter. "A drop-pod costs 800 points now" Okay, how does that make a Leman Russ with battlecannon worth taking?

The issue is that the tanks are not competing with other factions' vehicles, they're competing with other units in the Imperial Guard codex.

Formerly Wu wrote:
=
Guessing there's translation issues on the names there. Onwards seems strictly better than Go Go Go, unless you *really* need those extra few inches. I'm not sure why you would want to use Bayonet over disengage/Get a Grip, unless there's something we're not seeing here.

The wording there is confusing. What does the 7" range mean? It can't be their movement if they're appearing at the end of the phase.

I'm trying to see if I can get clarification but it's pretty chaotic over there. I don't know if he's even seen my inquiries.

**Formerly Wu**

ross-128 wrote:
Well, Ogryns can take orders too.

Probably!

The window where we have both the opportunity and desire to stay in melee for Fix Bayonets is... rather small. Though if those guardsmen are trapped by an ability like No Escape, or you are deliberately sacrificing them to tarpit a unit that is stronger than them, Fix Bayonets might be a good way for those guardsmen to give them the middle finger before they die.

Well, the other option here is if you have a priest nearby. Priests give them +1 A. If all you've got in melee are lasguns, then staying and using Fix Bayonets actually gives you more attacks than backing off and firing lasguns, especially since you get a second attack phase later in the turn.

The other point is that since you get to make the attacks before the Fight phase, if you're in a combat you think you can tip the scales of, it might be worth it just to deny the enemy that few more attacks.

**Trickstick**

Formerly Wu wrote:
I'm not sure why you would want to use Bayonet over disengage/Get a Grip, unless there's something we're not seeing here.

Some units can stop units from disengaging by forcing a roll off to succeed. It would be better to give them a good kicking.

**Formerly Wu**

Trickstick wrote:

Some units can stop units from disengaging by forcing a roll off to succeed. It would be better to give them a good kicking.

Another good point!

Something else I noticed from the Adeptus Ministorum leaks: shotguns are now Assault 2, 12", S3, AP -, with an ability that adds +1 to their strength when within half range. Finally shotgun vets have a niche.

**SeraphimXIX**

Guard are also somewhat better in combat due to to-hit rolls being set. As far as we know, they're always hitting on a 4+ in combat. That makes them pretty deadly against units that relied on high WS to avoid attacks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Formerly Wu wrote:
Trickstick wrote:

Some units can stop units from disengaging by forcing a roll off to succeed. It would be better to give them a good kicking.

Another good point!

Something else I noticed from the Adeptus Ministorum leaks: shotguns are now Assault 2, 12", S3, AP -, with an ability that adds +1 to their strength when within half range. Finally shotgun vets have a niche.

With how the detachments work I'm wondering if vet-spam might be worth it.

Depending on how cheap our HQ's are it shouldn't be too hard to get two battalion detachments in a single army. With how many heavy/special weapons vets can take now, and at only 6ppm, taking seven or eight squads seems really efficient.

And with how cover works now, they can be far more durable than their points are worth in shooting.

Mmmmm, I wonder what HWS and SWS are like now.

**Humble Guardsman**

SeraphimXIX wrote:
Galas wrote:
I'm not saying that in any shape or form. I was comparing Leman Russes to other vehicles. If vehicles are bad in this edition compared with other type of units was a point I didn't adressed.

I'm saying that in a edition where other vehicles are going up in point costs, remaining the same for Leman Russes is a huge "buff" for IG. If that buff is enough to make them viable, I don't know. But is nonsensical to say that is something irrelevant.

I mean, it's a non sequitur man. Like the definition of one. If the context of the discussion is "Can I take Leman Russ in my army and not feel like I'm wasting points", the points costs of other vehicles from other factions really doesn't matter. "A drop-pod costs 800 points now" Okay, how does that make a Leman Russ with battlecannon worth taking?

The issue is that the tanks are not competing with other factions' vehicles, they're competing with other units in the Imperial Guard codex.

1) You can't ignore every other faction when judging what to take. When you pick and choose IG units from the codex, you are picking and choosing with the enemy in mind. It's no mean advantage to be able to outnumber the armour of almost any foe you'll face. Most other lists are going to have to really scrimp and save to fit in an extra heavy vehicle or two. IG players can (much like IG commanders) chuck a Russ or two in without it hurting their points allowance much.

2) The Leman Russ itself stands up pretty well just looking at the rest of the codex. It's no 4pt guardsmen, but it's a durable slugger that is guaranteed to survive a couple more turns than it would in previous editions. The change to Armour Values alone fixes that. Vehicles as a whole got more durable, but for most of them it cost them a fair chunk of points.

8th ed may be the "Infantry Edition" of 40k (And my Horde IG are fine with that), but it's not like the Leman Russ got kicked in the teeth compared to 7th.

**Arbitrator**

get a grip! the target unit may fire, even if it disengaged from combat

[Heavy Breathing]

**Kommissar Kel**

SeraphimXIX wrote:
Kommissar Kel wrote:
SeraphimXIX wrote:
Oooooh, I checked the profile and you're right. Also the battlecannon is pen 2 vs the vanquisher's pen 3!

edit- It doesn't change its performance much though. :(

It's statistically worse against both T7 4+sv targets and T8 3+sv targets then the battlecannon. I decided to see what its average would look like with +1 BS as well and it doesn't improve much.

BS is exactly the same. .5 hits per shot fired.

The battle cannon averages 3.5 shots per turn netting 1.75 hits vs t8, with an average d3 damage of 2, that is 1.75 damage to be saved at ap-2.

The vanguisher huts half the time, wounding 1/4 of the time vs t8. Average damage of 2d6 pick high is 4.47 damage if 1.1175 damage to be saved.

Against t7, both get the same # of hits, with 1.1666wounds doing 1.3333 damage on the battle cannon and .6666 wounds doing 1.48888 damage on the vanquisher.

T9 goes the opposite way with .744999 damage to be saved from the vanquisher and 1.1666 damage from the battle cannon

So, yes it is worse against t8, but it is better against t7 or lower. Well, single model multi-wound targets anyways. The battle cannon damages multiple-model units better that the vanquisher(but it is supposed to).

Also the current vanquisher is a single shot on a bs3 model with a better armor penetration rate. The new one can also hurt mcs and gmcs. It is an upgrade .

You roll for saves before rolling for damage- you only roll damage for unsaved wounds.

So in the case of T7, the battlecannon is averaging 1 unsaved wound (2 damage total) and the vanquisher is averaging .33 unsaved wounds (0 damage total).

Ah; I hadn't gotten a chance to really read the core rules just skimmed them and looked at the specific weapon rules and was remembering the weapons q&a where they said that weapons can do multiple damage and you save each.

So with saves to account for and aggregate averages: a t7 4+ save model targeted will take 12 damage from a battle cannon in 6 rounds(7 wounding hits and 1 of those saved) to the vanquisher's 8.94(no saves).

A 3+ nets the battle cannon 5 damage and the vanquisher 4.47 in 3 rounds

A 2+ nets the battle cannon 2.333 damage and the vanquisher 2.98 damage

The better th save the more damage the vanquisher does.

**Humble Guardsman**

It's almost as if the Vanquisher was a dedicated tank hunter.

**SeraphimXIX**

Humble Guardsman wrote:
1) You can't ignore every other faction when judging what to take. When you pick and choose IG units from the codex, you are picking and choosing with the enemy in mind. It's no mean advantage to be able to outnumber the armour of almost any foe you'll face. Most other lists are going to have to really scrimp and save to fit in an extra heavy vehicle or two. IG players can (much like IG commanders) chuck a Russ or two in without it hurting their points allowance much.

Outnumbering enemy armor is not inherently meaningful- the enemy can have 20 vehicles and I can have none, it doesnt matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not I can kill them, and you dont need armor to kill armor. To the contrary, everything weve seen so far is pointing to infantry being much more efficient at killing vehiclee then vehicles themselves.

2) The Leman Russ itself stands up pretty well just looking at the rest of the codex. It's no 4pt guardsmen, but it's a durable slugger that is guaranteed to survive a couple more turns than it would in previous editions. The change to Armour Values alone fixes that. Vehicles as a whole got more durable, but for most of them it cost them a fair chunk of points.

Durability is meaningless without the damage to back it up. Just like in 7th, a good player will recognize how little damage a Russ does and ignore it until theres nothing else better to attack.

8th ed may be the "Infantry Edition" of 40k (And my Horde IG are fine with that), but it's not like the Leman Russ got kicked in the teeth compared to 7th.

Unit viability is pass or fail, how good it is or isnt compared to previous editions doesnt mean anything if theyre still bad.

**Alcibiades**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
math stuff

Would you mind plugging the Battle Cannon into your magic cogitator and see how it does against, I dunno

MEQ
a Riptide
another Leman Rus

or suchlike?

To see if it's actually as mediocre as people are saying.

I'd be appreciative!

**SeraphimXIX**

His stats are are in depth but here's the quick and dirty numbers for you:

MEQ: averages 1 dead MEQ a turn

Riptide: assuming the riptide is still t6 2+sv, it averages 2 damage on a riptide a turn

Leman Russ: 2 damage a turn on a Leman Russ

This is all rounding up.

**Martel732**

Russes are currently unplayable. It can't get any worse.

**Commissar Benny**

Initial thoughts:

Very disappointed with the Leman Russ reveals thus far. Battle cannon/vanquisher are absolutely terrible. LR cost increased instead of decreased. I'll stick to running exterminator Leman Russes for the gauranteed 8 autocannon shots.

4ppm infantry? If this is true & infantry squads are 40 pts thank the emperor. I was hoping they would go down as far as 3ppm, but I'll take it. Veterans still 6ppm? Likely won't be taking many.

Ogryn are still terrible. I am really hoping the reveal is wrong, because otherwise they will once again be sitting out this edition. Ripper guns need to yield bonuses to melee, Ogryns need feel no pain. Its in the lore, make it happen GW.

All artillery will be sitting out this edition. Doesn't matter what their stats are. We have Dark Eldar, Genestealers, Tyranids, Eldar that will be in assault with your gunline turn 1. Not joking. Tyranids will be 1 inch away from you turn 1 gauranteed every single game. Trygon + genestealers pop up 9" away, then swarmlord moves them in the "shooting" phase another 8". So now they are 1" away & charge, no overwatch. GG.

Confirmed characters: Creed/Kell? GW have you been paying attention to anything you have been doing lately? Creed is in a pokeball, Kell is dead.

Orders look interesting.

Looks like rough riders will finally be worth taking.

**SeraphimXIX**

Have we seen the stats for the Devil Dog, Bane Wolf etc?

Also sentinels.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Alcibiades wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
math stuff

Would you mind plugging the Battle Cannon into your magic cogitator and see how it does against, I dunno

MEQ
a Riptide
another Leman Rus

or suchlike?

To see if it's actually as mediocre as people are saying.

I'd be appreciative!

For sure! The chart I posted represents firing upon a T6, Sv3+ enemy.

I'll draw up charts for T6, 2+ and T8, 3+ and T4, Sv 3+.

**BrianDavion**

over all 8th edition seems to be designed to be "Age of infantry" I think, we a few exceptions, we're going to see most armies fielding infantry backed by a handful of vehicles for special duties.
what those vehicle choices are I suspect will vary from army to army, but I suspect they'll be mostly to eaither crack other vehicles open, and or destroy small multi-wound squads (like inceptors, obliterators etc )

**Commissar Benny**

Any word on heavy weapons teams or sentinels? In the IG reveal they were supposedly going to be amazing. Heavy weapons teams were supposed to have some rule that actually allows them to provide cover fire or something. Hopefully that means it automatically pins enemy units or prevents them from moving the following turn or something.

**SeraphimXIX**

Its only age of infantry for factions with vehicles, which is why it is kind if a slap in the face.

Almost every tyranid MC got a buff AND a price reduction. Freakin strength 12 t7 26" threat-range carnifex are only ~80 points a pop. You can bet that all the MC heavy factions are going to be spamming their "vehicles".

- - -

I dont have my codex around right now, does anyone remember if scout sentinels could take lascannons?

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Here we go:

**Commissar Benny**

SeraphimXIX wrote:
Its only age of infantry for factions with vehicles, which is why it is kind if a slap in the face. Almost every tyranid MC got a buff AND a price reduction. Freakin strength 12 t7 26" threat-range carnifex are only ~80 points a pop. You can bet that all the MC heavy factions are going to be spamming their "vehicles".

It definitely is. If IG players thought bubble wrapping was bad in previous editions, 8th edition is going to be bubble wrap on steroids. We are finding out that almost every army will be able to assault turn 1. Now that vehicles can charge, we are going to see opponents just ram into our tanks to tie them up & prevent them from shooting. Worse yet, if your men are not spaced out properly, enemy infantry could potentially kill one squad, then move onto the next and the next & wipe out half your army in one turn.

8th edition is going to be all about infantry, especially if the rumors of 40 pt infantry squads are true.

**SeraphimXIX**

The y-axis is percentage? The battlecannon is putting 0 wounds on a Russ nearly 60% of the time and on a riptide 55% of the time?

**Commissar Benny**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Here we go:

Thanks for putting that together. If this data is correct, its still not very impressive. An LR exterminator is going to be putting out more wounds per round guaranteed every time. 8 shots at -1, d3 wounds.

**Chris521**

Commissar Benny wrote:

Thanks for putting that together. If this data is correct, its still not very impressive. An LR exterminator is going to be putting out more wounds per round guaranteed every time. 8 shots at -1, d3 wounds.

This raises another question. is it 4 shots or 8 shots? All of the twin linked profiles I've seen have "twin" in the name. Right now we just have "Exterminator autocannon" Heavy 4. Is the "twin" implied in the name? Or are we down to 4 shots?

edit* never mind, it looks like 4 shots