8th Edition & BA

[Panzer]

Interestingly enough the end of the article mentions tomorrow (today) is about combining small arms firepower to bring down the "mightiest foes".

 

So I'm guessing in enough numbers the holy bolter can get increasing effectiveness against tougher units. Which is awesome as three tactical squads combining firepower to bring down a larger enemy is thematic as hell.

Or it's just about the wounding table. "Bringing down" is fairly loose and could just mean removing the last 1-2 wounds because they are able to wound on 6s. ;)

[Indefragable]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

 

- :cuss bikes! Woohoo! ("There are some things that vehicles, bikes, and walkers just can't do.")

-different models in a unit get to shoot at different targets (Command Squads just got way more powerful: the melta, the flamer, the plasma-gunner).

-streamlined To Wound:

--If S is 2x T, 2+ To Wound

--S > T, 3+

--S=T, 4+

--S<T, 5+

--S is half the value of T, OR LESS you Wound on a 6+. So that's how lasguns blow up Baneblades (although they mention that it will mathematically take 500 bolter shots to kill a morkanaut).

-

[Jullikka]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

 

- bikes! Woohoo! ("There are some things that vehicles, bikes, and walkers just can't do.")

-different models in a unit get to shoot at different targets (Command Squads just got way more powerful: the melta, the flamer, the plasma-gunner).

-streamlined To Wound:

--If S is 2x T, 2+ To Wound

--S > T, 3+

--S=T, 4+

--S<T, 5+

--S is half the value of T, OR LESS you Wound on a 6+. So that's how lasguns blow up Baneblades (although they mention that it will mathematically take 500 bolter shots to kill a morkanaut).

-

 

T8 or T9 is not a problem then 

[Xenith]

Antodeniel, I don't know if you're missing it, but they want to get rid of all the unnecessary special rules. FNP on an MC is essentially letting it survive 1/3 more wounds, so increasing its wounds by 1/3 has the same effect. Likewise IWND generally regenerates 1-2 wounds over a 6 turn game....so add 1-2 wounds to the base profile.

 

Loving that tacs can split fire. There's a reason to give them missile launchers again!

[Code 187]

Liking GW's idea of how to represent MC and super heavies stat-wise. Gives guys like me with a shortage of anti-armour half a chance. Though on the flip side if some runty little Guardsman took out one of my tanks I would be less than impressed.

[Xenith]

It'd serve you right for letting over a hundred guardsmen into rapid fire range though.

[durdle-durdle]

So bolters can wound t5-7 on a 5. Neat. Otoh, fists only wound on 2's against t4 or less now.

 

I really want to know what's going to happen to grav. If grav gets brought in line, and high rend values (2 or 3) are rare, this may be the new age of power armor. I'm also curious, with unwieldy disappearing, how will they differentiate power axes/swords/mauls/lances. I would expect mauls to retain +strength, maybe an so of 1. Lances maybe +strength and ap2 on charge (otherwise ap1), but then where do you put the sword or axe? If the axe is ap2 all the time but not unwieldy, I'd never not take it. And if the other two have any rend I'm not sure where the sword would fit in.

[Frater Antodeniel]

Antodeniel, I don't know if you're missing it, but they want to get rid of all the unnecessary special rules. FNP on an MC is essentially letting it survive 1/3 more wounds, so increasing its wounds by 1/3 has the same effect. Likewise IWND generally regenerates 1-2 wounds over a 6 turn game....so add 1-2 wounds to the base profile.

 

Loving that tacs can split fire. There's a reason to give them missile launchers again!

 

Personally, i don't know if GW will get rid of FNP or IWND^^, i just speculate. As far as i can imagine, i believe that FNP and IWND will stay the way they are. (Or maybe IWND will disapear and only FNP will remains, it is possible.)

 

But, even if i can imagine IWND being "absorbed/destroyed" by FNP, i don't think that FNP will disapear. FNP represent the physical (body) resilience, which is very different than the armour save/protection or the base Wounds. Plus FNP require a Roll to represent the hazard of such thing.

 

------------------------------------------

 

As for the Infantry Changes (Split Fire for all), i think this is a good and logical decision, and that like other previous changes that are coming in 8th edition, it will bring more diversity within the armies weapons options, and strategies.

[Xenith]

"FNP represent the physical (body) resilience, which is very different than the armour save/protection or the base Wounds"

 

But that is perfectly represented already​ by the toughness stat!

 

Why do we need 4-5 different rules that show how hard something is to kill?

[vahouth]

I really like that str 6 & 7 weapons no longer wound us on a 2+

The biggest deal for me though is the ability to shoot multiple targets with each squad. We can now shoot a unit and charge another! :P

[Jullikka]

How about twin lightning claws? They might be my new favourite if shred is still in the book.

I hope they keep FnP as it is. I think its more of a mind than body thing and very different what toughness stat represents.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Jullikka

[Panzer]

I hope FnP stays just because it's something different to roll on something than simply having a lot of wounds. Also there are enough cases by now that improve the FnP roll which would be weird to implement by going with more wounds. I just don't think that every 'Nid MC will get it for free lol that'd be ridiculous. :D

[Slothysaur]

I definitely like using FnP and saving that wound I was about to take, but I'm completely fine with it going away for the sake of streamlining the game.

It does make me wonder though, what will Death Company look like? I sure hope my favorite unit doesnt get the short end of the stick. So excited to see, I really can't wait for 8th edition!

[Jorre]

Good news guys if you interpret this the way I have. I have been listening to Reese and Frankie's pod cast on Frontline gaming (2 of the new editions play testers confirmed by GW if your not as in the loop as I)

 

Anyway they recently gave a very glowing review of chaos in the new edition more specifically Korn Beserkers! However there was a tiny bit of EXTRA info in the pod cast that has me very excited!

 

They where extremly animated on how good Beserkers are! But they made special note of Korn Beserkers and OTHER very similar units! While not 100% concrete I am pretty sure they were referring to Death company.

 

Let's face it Death company and Beserkers have been closely compared in every edition of this game and I really hope this is true!

[9x19 Parabellum]

I have to admit, so far, I'm seeing 3 things that I very much do not like.

 

1. Universal Split Fire.   Deciding how your squads would be outfitted and then how you would pursue your offensive strategy is one of the things I love about this game.  Everyone having split fire just puts it into easy mode and takes some of that thinking/strategizing away.

 

2. Anything wounds anything.  Again, I liked the fact that you had to take a well-rounded list to deal with all types of threats.  One of the reasons I stopped playing Necrons was how powerful they were, and how easy it was to just Gauss everything down.  Now, effectively, all armies have Gauss Technology.  Is there any reason not to go with volume fire now? Throw enough dice out and you're bound to end up with some 6's. 

 

3. Battle Shock.  Not loving this concept so far.  Will ultimately reserve judgment, but I'm not hopeful about it.

[Charlo]

I have to admit, so far, I'm seeing 3 things that I very much do not like.

 

1. Universal Split Fire.   Deciding how your squads would be outfitted and then how you would pursue your offensive strategy is one of the things I love about this game.  Everyone having split fire just puts it into easy mode and takes some of that thinking/strategizing away.

 

2. Anything wounds anything.  Again, I liked the fact that you had to take a well-rounded list to deal with all types of threats.  One of the reasons I stopped playing Necrons was how powerful they were, and how easy it was to just Gauss everything down.  Now, effectively, all armies have Gauss Technology.  Is there any reason not to go with volume fire now? Throw enough dice out and you're bound to end up with some 6's. 

 

3. Battle Shock.  Not loving this concept so far.  Will ultimately reserve judgment, but I'm not hopeful about it.

 

1. I get where you are coming from, but it still never made sense for those Bolter boys to sit around and do nothing while their Missile Launcher took a pop shot, or even worse it made the Grav Cannon the only option worth taking (or Heavy Flamer for us) as anything else just wouldn't be used and was a waste of points. The new way is more cinematic and makes sense. Four Tactical squads bring the same firepower as a Dev squad & command squad (plus all the bolters and sarge combis) and are a lot harder to shut down and more useful as a result!

 

2. It sucks in a Vacuum, but when you take into account rolling to hit/ wound/ cover/ more things getting saves due to modifiers it's not too big a deal. Sure those Lasguns can hurt a Dreadnought on a 6+, but just rolling to hit will eliminate 50% of those hits, rolling to wound eliminates another 83% of those successful hits and then any decent cover means your Dread could have a 2+, meaning a further 83% of those successful wounds are gone. So it still takes a LOT of small arms to damage the big boys.

 

3. I'm skeptical. But I think the individual army rules and HQ buffs will be what makes this more manageable for elite armies.

[RedemptionNL]

Characters bit is up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/09/new-warhammer-40000-characters-may9gw-homepage-post-4/

 

The removal of Independent Characters is interesting indeed. I'm curious how this will work with normal Characters like Sergeants though.

 

But having 1 Character like a Sanguinary Priest or Chaplain spread his benefit to multiple squads is certainly very nice for us!

Edited May 9, 2017 by RedemptionNL

[vahouth]

It looks like the way characters work in AoS

[RedemptionNL]

I'm unfamiliar with the AoS rules; how do squad leaders work there? Or do they not have any?

[Jolemai]

5th edition Sanguinary Priest bubbles?

[Charlo]

5th edition Sanguinary Priest bubbles?

 

We can but hope.

 

I'm unfamiliar with the AoS rules; how do squad leaders work there? Or do they not have any?

 

They do, they're usually denoted by a different piece of equipment or some flourish on the model (so not too different to 40k) but are just part of a squad with a slightly different statline.

[Arkaniss]

Difficult to gauge when we don't know the new rules for a lot of ICs but it could certainly be very promising! I think we're all on the same page here as nearly all of us are already posting about Sanguinary Priest bubbles :P

[9x19 Parabellum]

Yeah, but what difference does it make if every army's leaders provide "buff bubbles".   Don't get me wrong, I love Sang Priests and hope we get a FnP and/or WS buff bubble.  But since characters won't be joining units, I expect almost all of them will provide some kind of aura effect.

 

It's another thing I don't like, and I don't understand their thinking.

According to article, characters joining units is/was bad because: deathstar units and unthematic pairings? (the example given was Ravenwing / Thunderwolf)

 

How does this change that?  If characters now give aura buffs we run the risk of not just 1 but MULTIPLE deathstar units since multiple units can claim multiple buffs from multiple characters.  Nor does it solve the problem of unthematic pairings since (absent other information), we're still going to see Ravenwing/Thunderwolf combos...assuming that's the netlist cookie of the month)

 

I just don't get GW. Instead of focusing on the problem and solving it (in this case, a lack of playtesting and forecasting on how a powerful character can buff units, and thus writing rules/point-cost correctly, or a thorough examination of how allies work), instead they break some other rule which in and of itself wasn't the problem. 

[Panda_Saurus_Rex]

Yeah, but what difference does it make if every army's leaders provide "buff bubbles".   Don't get me wrong, I love Sang Priests and hope we get a FnP and/or WS buff bubble.  But since characters won't be joining units, I expect almost all of them will provide some kind of aura effect.

 

It's another thing I don't like, and I don't understand their thinking.

According to article, characters joining units is/was bad because: deathstar units and unthematic pairings? (the example given was Ravenwing / Thunderwolf)

 

How does this change that?  If characters now give aura buffs we run the risk of not just 1 but MULTIPLE deathstar units since multiple units can claim multiple buffs from multiple characters.  Nor does it solve the problem of unthematic pairings since (absent other information), we're still going to see Ravenwing/Thunderwolf combos...assuming that's the netlist cookie of the month)

 

I just don't get GW. Instead of focusing on the problem and solving it (in this case, a lack of playtesting and forecasting on how a powerful character can buff units, and thus writing rules/point-cost correctly, or a thorough examination of how allies work), instead they break some other rule which in and of itself wasn't the problem. 

 

 

It changes in that now Character buffs will be attached to keywords. So Azrael or whomever will only give his buffs out to those with "Dark Angel" or some such keyword attached. Its the death of Superfriends or just throwing in someone like Celestine as her buffs will probably only apply to those with the "Sisters of Battle" keyword.

 

 

Personally I like it and I'm all on board. 

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

The only part that confuses me is... transports. Does that mean we'll need a separate transport to get Characters into battle or are they just walking slowly across the table?