|
DO IT TO IT posted:Surprised lascannons aren't -4 AP. 6+ power armor saves vs. lascannon wounds comin' atcha. Yeah, that's interesting Fuegan posted:The line about "Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted." is interesting. In AoS, damage carries over to the unit as a whole but it sounds like 40k it's more dependent on hits rather than the weapon's damage. So is this, but it makes sense that Lascannon shots wouldn't carry over I guess. JBP posted:I always find this stuff confusing given that bolters are basically rocket propelled grenade launchers. Like a lasgun/flamer and bolter should probably have varying penetration vs armour. A bolter should be -1 but I'm about to turn into a frothing fluff ham and I also know nothing about the game more widely than this so I'll shut up. Enh; I'm not so worried about bolters being -1 AP if the rest of the game is balanced around their damage output. They are by far the game's most common weapon, and this is a case where I'm OK with rules taking precedence over fluff Heavy Bolters better loving shred, though
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
JBP posted:S isn't capped at 10 any more. I wonder what this will mean for D weapons and stuff now. Shaping up to be a pretty big rule change compared to the last few. D weapons are gone in 8th.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:So is this, but it makes sense that Lascannon shots wouldn't carry over I guess. Absolutely, which is why I'm glad they altered the system for 40k. I mean, it's fun watching characters tear through units because of the damage they put out in AoS but I'd rather it made more thematic sense, which is what they seem to be going for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:D weapons are gone in 8th. The D weapon class is, but not the weapons themselves. He's just wondering what kind of strength they'll have. Like a Stomp attacks being Str 12 and so on. I wonder how the damage tables with work with transports, hopefully something thematic like once it gets to 3 wounds taken the unit inside takes d6 str 4 wounds or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:D weapons are gone in 8th. yeah they'll just keep scaling up, so we'll see guns with S12 and poo poo Fuegan posted:Absolutely, which is why I'm glad they altered the system for 40k. I mean, it's fun watching characters tear through units because of the damage they put out in AoS but I'd rather it made more thematic sense, which is what they seem to be going for. Yeah I'm fine with each hit causing multiple wounds as long as the number of models lost doesn't exceed the number of hits
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
I hope stomp attacks are gone forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Judging by the statlines presented alone, I find it a little funny that a Lascannon completely ruins Roboute's day. Shredding off a third of a Primarch's wounds on average damage and hitting hin from 6 movement speed lengths away looks painful, especially when his comfortable 2+ save gets flipped to success on a 5 or 6. Then again, he'll probably have some Primarch abilities to help protect him. It's just neat seeing that even a hero like him could benefit from some covering fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
is this thread unbound already? i can't tell
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
I'm sure invulnerable saves are still a thing, and The Big Man probably has the best one. Though, maybe they'll fold invunerable into the Armor Save modifier system, and a Storm Shield now ignores the first 3 AP points.Pierzak posted:is this thread unbound already? i can't tell It was really unfunny last time and now we have a death thread so go hog wild over there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
JBP posted:I always find this stuff confusing given that bolters are basically rocket propelled grenade launchers. Like a lasgun/flamer and bolter should probably have varying penetration vs armour. A bolter should be -1 but I'm about to turn into a frothing fluff ham and I also know nothing about the game more widely than this so I'll shut up. There was a Q&A tweet from one of the designers saying that cover now modifies the save, so it sounds like they're consolidating everything (armour / cover / invuln) into a single roll; hence them toning down modifiers a bit. I expect we'll see special rules on some models that let them ignore modifiers in some situations, or re-roll the single save they get now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:is this thread unbound already? i can't tell When was it not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Boy you sound like a blast to play games with "these new rules are gonna be great!" *immediately begins planning workarounds*
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
I will never recover from my Thunderhawk no longer having D next to the turbolaser. That letter is far more frightening than a number higher than 10.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
xtothez posted:There was a Q&A tweet from one of the designers saying that cover now modifies the save, so it sounds like they're consolidating everything (armour / cover / invuln) into a single roll; hence them toning down modifiers a bit. This would make sense from the 'speed up rolling' thing. I'd bet Invuls are just 'save can never be worse than X+'. So Robot has a 2+, gets hit by a Lascannon which would flip him to a 5+, but he's in cover so it would be a 4+, but he has an Invul that is 'never worse than 3+'. Now all these rules stack but are simple to resolve on one roll without having to choose the best or whatever. I wonder if Jinking will be the same? edit: It will be super important to find out if saves are taken before or after rolling number of wounds. Ideally rolling saves after number of wounds makes the most sense. TKIY fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
TKIY posted:This would make sense from the 'speed up rolling' thing. I'd bet Invuls are just 'save can never be worse than X+'. Of course, this begs the question of resolution order. If Invul says can't be reduced under 3+ rolls, would that be before cover or after?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Really curious how invulns are going to work.TheChirurgeon posted:Yeah I'm fine with each hit causing multiple wounds as long as the number of models lost doesn't exceed the number of hits I'm ok with them putting a ton of wounds on one model for each hit, it makes sense that a lascannon would murder the everloving poo poo out of one specific guy, but not necessarily vaporize him and two others. It also rules because it gets rid of that problem where a Vindicator would ice an entire squad of joes but only ever be able to chip a single wound off of a Riptide. All in all I like this change to weapons - you get X shots that, if they hit, do Y wounds to whichever model got hit. I'm fine with replacing the template-and-scatter-dice-based randomization with d6-based randomization, but I do hope there are some static values for some guns and the multi-wound shots aren't all random.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
BIG MEATY SHITS posted:"these new rules are gonna be great!" "If you don't like everything about the new rules, they must be terrible!" *shits pants*
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
AOS does a few things to vary save modifiers for units. Some units can reroll save rolls, some units ignore Rend (AP), some units have a chance to ignore damage after the save, and others can heal wounds. The basic aos rules arent much but there are lots of cool units that break those rules in interesting ways and that's what makes the game fun. It seems like 40k is going the same route, but with a bigger basic rule set
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:*shits pants* Same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Something I noticed about the new weapon stats. Flamers no longer have 'ignores cover' This means that unless there's some other elements of the rules we're missing (like auto-hits in general ignoring cover) it's possible to increase your protection from a flamethrower by standing behind a mesh fence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:Something I noticed about the new weapon stats. Flamers no longer have 'ignores cover' This means that unless there's some other elements of the rules we're missing (like auto-hits in general ignoring cover) it's possible to increase your protection from a flamethrower by standing behind a mesh fence. Yeah, looks like. The rules change also means that flamers are more useful against smaller units, too. Or as BuffaloChicken pointed out to me "you can focus roast one dude to the tune of six wounds"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
At the same time though now stuff with high AP will just blow them away regardless of cover assuming you hit. Plus they're going to get a save against each of those d6 hits as opposed to that lascannon where its one save against d6 wounds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Considering that chasing a Carnifex down with gouts of flsme is a really badass mental image, I'm okay with this. I'm also very okay with the less-than-subtle assurances that Orks are going to be good now. Flamers not mentioning cover is an interesting change. I doubt there will be an unspoken rule meaning autohi weappns skip it, because I'm sure that would have come up in the article. I can get high AP weapons messing up cover saves. Lasguns and mortar basically smashing through cover to hit their marks is another badass image I'm fine with encouraging.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Cross posting that completed Necron Lord for my Inner Circle display board.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if invulnerable saves will be something like "AP modifiers cannot bring the saving throw higher than X+". So like Gulliman would always roll a 3+ vs Lascannons maybe
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Guessing that the new version of eternal warrior is some level of resistance or immunity to multiple damage hits otherwise characters are going to go down very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
I think a lot of weapon talk is pointless without knowing wound allocation. For example how is the lascannon wasted? Can I only apply it to a single model?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:Can I only apply it to a single model? If it's a single-wound model, yes. Now units of multi-wound models, like the new Terminators, I'm not sure. In fantasy, the multi-wound effect would bleed over onto other models in the unit if they were multi-wound.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:I think a lot of weapon talk is pointless without knowing wound allocation. For example how is the lascannon wasted? Can I only apply it to a single model? It kinda has to with the d6 hits d6 damage distinction. Otherwise if the lascannon is ignoring their saves its suddenly an extremely powerful anti infantry weapon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Oh, plus DoW3 coming out soon. Sorry, bud. I am so excited by these rules so far. It is a little weird that there is no AP on a Bolter, but as the standard gun of the future it makes sense as the baseline. Maybe lasguns will give +1 to save or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:Cross posting that completed Necron Lord for my Inner Circle display board. This looks badass. I love the bases for your army. OhDearGodNo posted:I think a lot of weapon talk is pointless without knowing wound allocation. For example how is the lascannon wasted? Can I only apply it to a single model? Yes, that's what is implied in the article Games Workshop posted:Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single wound per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:So is this, but it makes sense that Lascannon shots wouldn't carry over I guess. Instead they carry through.  To be fair I'd almost be fine if Lascannon damage overflow would only count for anyone standing directly behind the first target as it gets cored. Great way to gently caress with a conga line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Bolters being "Rapid fire 1" is an interesting change too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Sorry, bud. The system just isn't granular enough to really justify giving them AP -1. If a Lascannon is -3, that leaves Missile Launcher equivalents at -2 and Heavy Bolters/Autocannons at -1. If Bolters were -1, then that leaves everything stronger than a strong small arms weapon and weaker than a directed energy blast at -2. Artum posted:Bolters being "Rapid fire 1" is an interesting change too. Yeah, I'd guess that Salvo and Rapid Fire are being combined.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Artum posted:It kinda has to with the d6 hits d6 damage distinction. Otherwise if the lascannon is ignoring their saves its suddenly an extremely powerful anti infantry weapon. Yeah. I don't mind Lascannons being one shot on one target because otherwise they'd be ridiculous. So long ad you hit you basically wound on most infantry at a range where it would take four turns of standard movement to retaliate. Deleting up to 6 models with each shot after the fact would be too much. Flamers might be useful against both crowds and big monsters, but they have a significant risk due to their close range component. The Bee fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
I am OK with 40k weapons being reworked to fit my conception of them from playing Space Marine
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:Yeah, I'd guess that Salvo and Rapid Fire are being combined. Can they even? the two weapon types are kinda opposed, more shots at close range vs more shots and longer range from being stationary. TheChirurgeon posted:I am OK with 40k weapons being reworked to fit my conception of them from playing Space Marine Make heavy bolters salvo weapons god dammit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
The Bee posted:I'm also very okay with the less-than-subtle assurances that Orks are going to be good now. Games Workshop posted:...allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. I'm not counting my chickens yet. Watch them give trukks 6 wounds and buggies 3 wounds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Arven posted:I'm not counting my chickens yet. Watch them give trukks 6 wounds and buggies 3 wounds. Well, considering a Lascannon can pretty easily kill an AV10 open-topped vehicle now with a single shot, 6 Wounds is pretty substantial. That means it'll take 1-6 Lascannon shots to deal that much damage, where as now a Trukk can be killed 28% of the time with a AP2 hit versus 17% for a roll of 6 on a d6. I mean that's for a general vehicle, there's the Orky rules to deal with. Still 6W isn't bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:The system just isn't granular enough to really justify giving them AP -1. If a Lascannon is -3, that leaves Missile Launcher equivalents at -2 and Heavy Bolters/Autocannons at -1. If Bolters were -1, then that leaves everything stronger than a strong small arms weapon and weaker than a directed energy blast at -2. Yeah, granularity combined with the combined saving throw system helps to manage the 'everything can hurt everything' approach. Here even a simple -1 AP becomes very strong en mass. Consider if you have a Land Raider that is likely to have a 2+ save and require 6+ to wound with a boltgun. That means on average 1 in 36 hits inflict a wound. With a -1 AP, that average suddenly drops to 1 in 18, and you're inflicting twice as many wounds. I think non-zero AP values are going to be largely restricted to heavy/special weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:10
|
|