Prot's Take on BIG Changes for Deathwatch in 8th Edition

[Prot]

+++ Warning: This is just my take on 8th based on the GW Live FAQ video. I am drawing conclusions based on what they said as fact, and combining some other sources: I think Shadow Wars may have given us some insight into mechanics, while AoS may give us insight into source material.  +++

 

 

We have a wishlist topic, but I think since GW did the video yesterday I feel like we could probably mull over how this news will affect us building Deathwatch for 8th edition.

 

Assuming what they said is true, I don't think the transport issues should be a problem anymore. They claim they 'thoroughly' playtested every codex. Now does that mean the Deathwatch got as much testing as.... Ultramarines? Probably not, but I don't want to assume that. The end result is we have to assume the really low level, 'why didn't they even think of this' stuff has to be taken care of.

 

1. What we do know is there is Strength and Toughness. We know anything can wound anything else. At first people went nuts about this but I have said this more than once so let me just quote myself to save time:

 

 

So in Shadow Wars, you CAN hit on a 9+ but it's very hard.

 

So let's take that to 40K in 'to wound a Wraithknight'.

 

A lasgun hits but it may need a 6 to wound, PLUS a 4+ to cause a wound.

 

The Wraithknight may have 30 wounds.

 

A Meltagun (to steal from Shadow Wars again) could cause D6 wounds if the save is failed by the Wraithknight.

 

Just taking this from Shadow Wars and applying the proper logic.

 

So to me, this keeps the Stalker relevant. If it's still combined with SIA, even better, and potentially it's even stronger if they borrow from Shadow Wars (IE: running makes you +1 to hit with shooting.)

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. No more Templates.  I look to 'sustained fire' from Shadow Wars for possible answers to what happens for us. Why do I like this? First thing is I always despised our best gun had to sit at the front of the squad and die the turn after they did their business (since they are at the front).

 

(Note: I'm assuming closest models still die first in 8th) This means our Frag Cannons may actually live longer! I can't tell you how much I won't miss strategically placing 2 Frag cannons, a normal dude, and a shield dude. If it has far less importance, I'm all for that. So I think 'no templates' is a positive for Deathwatch.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

3. He who charges goes first! I love this. It actually helps all armies imo, and makes some insanely scary (Orks for example). But why I like this for Deathwatch is we do have unique (albeit too expensive assault options but more on that later) assault options.

 

I think it's iconic for your 'hero' to have something like a fist or hammer... or Heavy Hammer (!?) but right now that's just a bad idea, especially with challenges. Does the second round of close combat flip to initiative? Who knows, but we do know if you rush in with your heavy hammer, your 'best' guy gets to swing that hammer.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

4. Cost re-balancing. This is huge. Maybe one of my bigger gripes. We pay just way too much for a base dude, and the wargear (especially some of it) is so expensive you would never touch it in a real game. Now if they did a 'fair' assessment and they claim they did because they want to release the most 'balanced version of 40K yet', then that means they MUST have evaluated Deathwatch costing. 

 

We know in the past to give 'marines' a chance at competitive levels one of the mechanisms was 'free stuff'.  So we were overcosted, and got nothing at a discount (even trading in an SIA bolter for a.... meltagun meant you basically just became a brutally overcosted space marine.) It goes without saying that at the very least, some things would go down in cost. The big question will become: did they re-balance undercosted stuff as well (looking at Eldar)? I guess we'll see.

 

 4B. This is really a side effect of 4 (cost balancing) and 2 (no templates): I see a positive for items like... the IHB. A terrible weapon, not only over costed but of completely split roles that you are paying for, but rarely using.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

5. Rewarding the 'Pure" anti Xenos player: In the video they cited a reward system. "Keywords" and command traits that grew the larger your base Faction becomes. Further to this they explained that there are 14 Force org charts. The more of your faction that fit into the largest chart, the more your primary faction benefited from using the larger Org chart. This is good. I always hated having to rely on outside resources to be competitive.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

6. Armour Modifying and Terminators: This is partly based on the video talking about armour modifying, and Shadow Wars (as well as 2nd Edition's) take on terminator armour.  This works for us because if we assume we can still cherry pick load outs for our terminators, it might actually be much more useful to take those 1-3 man terminator squads with special weapons and plop them down on the field. This was unique to us, and may get even better if we can't be outright denied our save, and it does in fact become: 3+ save on 2xD6.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

7. Vehicle 'Wounds' and Damaged Performance: So everything will depreciate in performance as it takes damage. This is good for us, bad for Xenos. It always bothered me a lot that you can take half the wounds off of a Riptide, or Tervigon, or fill in the Xenos Species, and it always operated at 100% efficiency. Yet one lucky roll on a Landraider, and it's stuck the whole game, basically useless. It just never made sense.

 

We don't know the extent of how impaired performance becomes for a victim, all we know for sure is that there is a degredation of performance for damaged MC's/GC's and vehicles. This helps us against the Xenos, and it helps us with those expensive units no one takes in competitive games: Landraiders. The Beacon Angelis + Landraider may become a real thing (if the Beacon survives the edition!). I'm looking forward to potentially using one of the most iconic vehicles in the Imperium again.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

8. Sustained fire + Damage Values: One thing that always frustrated me is over the years I've watched many Xenos weapons evolve through editions, and codexes. This very, very rarely happened for Marines. I understand financially it made no sense to make the "Heavy Bolter" better at throwing.. Bolts. It was more economic to create... the necessary evil of Grav Cannons (for example). You can't sell heavy bolters when everyone has a closet full.

 

Well now with Sustained Fire + Damage Values we can assume that yes, perhaps a Lasgun can damage anything, but a Lascannon is probably going to do something like D6 damage against a hard target for every 'wound'. (Taken from Shadow Wars).

 

So now how does the idea of a Landraider look if it can't be fried in a shot, and has useful lascannons? I'm speculating to a degree here, but it would make sense.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

9.The Psychic Phase: Purely conjecture on this one, but dabbling in psychics is really nasty for Deathwatch in competitive play. We have zero advantage here (to my annoyance since I feel strongly we should have a dude who's forte is exploiting the weak Xenos psychic mind!) The problem is that dabbling in psychics is really bad in 7th edition, and quite volatile. You can pay a few points for a dude who may be able to do something incredible, or absolutely nothing of value, and would be shut down completely by any Psychic powerhouse in the game.

 

This is more rumour based but if Psychic tests follow AoS, it appears taking 'a psyker' might be valid again. I miss being able to do that.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

10. Range Modifiers and Deathwatch: This is a mixture of my own conclusions based on the FAQ video and Shadow Wars shooting phase. I really think this makes sense for most of our weapons and I believe they 'previewed' this idea for us with the Frag Cannon and its 'Impact' rule.

 

Again going back to Shadow Wars some weapons, actually almost all, have a short range stat, and a long range stat.

 

So obviously this is already in play with the Frag Cannons, but what about the IHB? This is really a good beneficiary of the rule and may make it far more useful, rather than situational. What about Deathwatch Shotguns? Without templates but with range modifiers they could be really good combined with multi round choices.

 

 

So those are 10 random thoughts, in no specific order, I have on the 8th Edition preview and Deathwatch. Am I off my rocker? Do you have a few ideas of your own? What did I miss?

 

 

 

 

 

[SnakeChisler]

Assaults & He who Charges 1st?

 

I think there will be a lot of changes, we have defensive grenades to think about assault grenades, assault grenades on vehicles once the grenade box was opened it just kept on going

 

Are they going to go with a pure he who charges 1st or a hybrid such as your I4 there I4 you charged so you go 1st?

 

What about overwatch its got more and more powerful for some armies Tau can get a 12" supporting fire bubble DA get full BS we then have a whole host of differing wargear arriving which block it from dirge casters to relics?

 

Lots of things to discuss in this post but one topic at a time for me :)

[Runefyre]

I hope they also come to their senses and give terminators/dreadnoughts special issue ammunition.

 

With dreadnoughts becoming similar to a monstrous creature, maybe now my venerable dreadnought can successfully wrestle a carnifex and have a chance to live and tell the tale!

[Moostick]

I don't know the shadow war rules, but I'm assuming sustained fire is you roll a die (dice) and if you roll over a number, you get another shot?

 

With what we know so far with weapons dealing 1, D3, or D6 wounds, and anything can wound anything with a 6+ at worst, I feel armies will now depend on how much of a gambler you are. I feel the game will depend much more heavily on how hot your and your opponent's dice rolls are.

 

Will you go with drowning your opponent in 6+ wounds with regular saves? Will you fire D3 wound shots with potential for a second shot at -3 saves? Or will you go balls to the wall, fire a single D6 wound shot with no saves and pray you roll well?

 

Edit: landing a lascannon shot and then rolling a 1 on your D6 wounds. I imagine a lot of ragehammer incoming.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Moostick

[Prot]

Let me clarify a few things....

1st off I'm just using the Shadow Wars shooting examples because although 8th may not be identical... it certainly has indicated some strong similarities.

So Sustained fire:

A heavy bolter gets Sustained Fire 3. You doll 3 x D3 and that's how many shots you have. Three minimum, nine max. I love this since it makes some 'old' weapons usable again and adds further relevance to 'multimode' weapons like we have.

The wounding thing:

When they say anything can wound anything, the odds get worse and worse for stuff like Lasguns. So again borrowing from Shadow Wars (I don't know a 100 percent that this will be how it works...) Let's assume you hit, then you need a "6" on a roll of D6, if you get it, you may need another "6" on a roll of D6 to wound something like a Knight. So yes in theory a lasgun can take take down a Knight, but you could also win the lottery tonight too.

Damage Factor:

That's a lasgun example, but to add relevance to old/bad weapons, they could be using the Damage factor from Shadow Wars for those old weapons. So how this works in Shadow Wars is... a Krack Missile may only have one shot, but if the save is failed by the target, you deliver D3 wounds.

This example is completely me just guessing, but it makes sense to have 20-30 wound models, because the fact a lasgun -could- damage a Knight is less of a factor, but a Lascannon is probably going to have a much higher damage potential. This makes what GW said in their video truthful, but adds scale to what that means (if they use the mechanics of Shadow Wars).

I could be way off. But I'm using that system, and the fact we already have stuff like Frag Cannons that have changing statlines with distance qualifiers.

If my guess is close, or correct, I think this spells good things for us. The weapons are going through re-costing anyway, and the loss of templates is good for us... not as good as Astra, but still good for us.

Think of something like a Landraider... what if it had 26 hullpoints? You would need 4 lascannons, all hitting, all wounding, then all rolling a 6 on a D6 to get rid of your landraider. What about right now (7th edition)? Well you just need all 4 to hit and pen, and the landraider is gone. -OR- ONE lascannon hits, and immoblizes you for the game.

No one takes Landraiders, and this is why (well aside from Grav). They are iconic. We can see from today's Chart, that the Landraider example I'm giving just might be plausible:

First note Dreadnaught wounds. Now what would you value a Corvus at? Or a Landraider?

Note the 2 wound marine terminators.

WS and BS seems to be a starting point for what you hit on instead of looking at a chart.

The "T" value on armour is exactly what I hoped for.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Prot

[Vash]

I for one am welcoming all of this. 

My Deathwatch are eager to join the battle field once more. 

 

Most of your thoughts I agree with, and I think your going with the right approach by comparing with Shadow wars (GW has used boxed game before as testing grounds). 

[Irbis]

Most of your thoughts I agree with, and I think your going with the right approach by comparing with Shadow wars (GW has used boxed game before as testing grounds). 

 

Eh, I think it's really bad approach to be honest. SW is copy of 2nd edition of 40K/Necromunda, 8th is 5th edition mixed with AoS. These two are really different rulesets, and there is no testing seeing 8th is long after printing and now being shipped to GW for distribution. Plus, just look how little SW sets were made, it was clearly supposed to be small side game, not a preview of anything.

 

Sustained fire? I'd be really surprised if 8th has such mechanic, it's slow, cumbersome, and adds little to the game. Imagine sustained firing 5 heavy bolter squad - it sounds really jarring compared to all the 8th streamlining, if they dropped templates I don't see them doing even slower mechanic. I also don't think they will include multiple tier rolling to wound, again, it's slow, cumbersome, and if Roboute now has simple 2+ BS instead of his older 2+/4+ reroll to again, cut on dice rolling, I don't see they will keep re-re-rerolling, it will be straight 6 to wound anything, maybe the defender will get some bonus like reroll failed saves if S to T difference is really big but that's it.

[Vel'Cona]

I'm interested in how they'll handle mixed saves/Toughness values.  Maybe it'll stay as is, but any changes will be extremely relevant to Kill Teams and how we set them up.  Also, how will they handle mixed unit types in general (Bikers + Termies, etc.)?  Lots more questions than answers, still.

[Prot]

 

Most of your thoughts I agree with, and I think your going with the right approach by comparing with Shadow wars (GW has used boxed game before as testing grounds). 

 

Eh, I think it's really bad approach to be honest. SW is copy of 2nd edition of 40K/Necromunda, 8th is 5th edition mixed with AoS. These two are really different rulesets, and there is no testing seeing 8th is long after printing and now being shipped to GW for distribution. Plus, just look how little SW sets were made, it was clearly supposed to be small side game, not a preview of anything.

 

Sustained fire? I'd be really surprised if 8th has such mechanic,

 

 

Very interesting.I think it's a great idea, but we definitely see this differently. But I think what I said is being over simplified a bit...

 

I never meant to say "Shadow Wars is a preview of 8th". In fact I think it's the other way around. Necromunda had mechanisms in it dating back to second edition and GW have (wisely) chosen to borrow some of those elements. It's already in what they've previewed. They've already shown us mechanics of 8th that DO exist in Shadow Wars that do not exist in 7th ed.

 

Example: In Shadow Wars things you do (cover, run, etc) result in modifying the "to hit" value of your opponent.

 

 

Large weapons will do multiple Wounds to Tanks and Monstrous Creatures.

 

^This is a mechanism of Shadow Wars not really seen in 7th. It will add validity to such dated weapons like... the Lacannon for instance.

 

 

Bringing back Movement Characteristic

 

^This is a mechanism of Shadow Wars not present in 7th.

 

 

Chargers attack first in close combat (although this can be interrupted by the use of a Command Point)

^This is a mechanism of Shadow Wars not present in 7th.

 

 

Armour Save Modifiers are back in

^This is a mechanism of Shadow Wars not present in 7th.

 

 

I think you see the evidence is clearly there.

 

I don't think "Sustained" Fire is necessarily the mechanism in 8th. And for clarity I don't think that all of Shadow Wars is getting ported over, but I'm 100% confident that some of the ideas in Shadow Wars are in 8th. They've verified this.

 

Sustained Fire is a way to make a Heavy Bolter good again... but it could be as simple as saying... a Heavy Bolter gets 5 shots now (instead of 3 x D3).

 

Also from Shadow Wars is the unsaved wound causing higher damage (IE: D3 wounds etc) from higher impact weapons. But again, they could be borrowing from this mechanic. IE: A lacannon wound (unsaved) equates to 5 wounds. Or something to that effect.

 

This still borrows from SW, it just dumbs it down, steamlines it, a bit more. The core idea being this is the sort of stuff that can make weapons we've all scoffed at become viable again.

 

 

I don't see they will keep re-re-rerolling, it will be straight 6 to wound anything, maybe the defender will get some bonus like reroll failed saves if S to T difference is really big but that's it.

 

This I have trouble seeing. It's just speculation but the idea of a Lasgun straight out wounding a Landraider on a 6 is hard to imagine. The 9+ roll mechanism allows small arms fire to damage 'big things' but as you say this could be balanced out by allowing the target a re-roll, which brings us full circle to not having re-rolls so I don't know

 

 

I'm interested in how they'll handle mixed saves/Toughness values.  Maybe it'll stay as is, but any changes will be extremely relevant to Kill Teams and how we set them up.  Also, how will they handle mixed unit types in general (Bikers + Termies, etc.)?  Lots more questions than answers, still.

 

This is big. Also Look Out Sir Super friends is such a grind on the game. With Deathwatch it was the only way I could save my beacon (bacon?) so I was very guilty of using that mechanism but I hated it. It was far more abusive with other armies though.

 

It makes me wonder if we will go back to just removing any model of our choice rather than closest. That would make it easier for mixed units, mixed T values. But the mixed armour is something that affects us a lot, and will be interesting to see how they handled this.

[SnakeChisler]

Removing or taking wounds on the model you want I would suspect will not come back, this was taken away due to abuse by various deathstars type builds (ex:- Nob Bikers & Paladins). I was mighty glad when the rule got changed to its current flavour.

 

The current nearest & LOS mechanism works for the most part as there are a number of mechanisms to get around a character tanking all the wounds from barrage to LOS blocking with vehicles so you can't see the tank character to different CC weapons forcing saves on the nearest model.

 

How is barrage now going to be handled?

 

Its going to be hard to put out deathstars with new way of army building and there seems to be a will in GW Towers to stop the silly sauce cross buffing

 

Quote from a Q&A with GW

 Introduction of Allies, Keywords to all units in the game. For example a Tactical Squad may have ASTARTES, TACTICAL, INFANTRY as keywords. A Space Marine Librarian may only be able to use powers on other models with the ASTARTES keyword, while an APOTHOCARY may only be able to assist models with both the ASTARTES and INFANTRY keywords.

 

https://www.facebook.com/WarhammerTVteam/videos/368356113559373/

[Moostick]

So weapon profiles are out for bolters, flamers and lascannon.

 

Bolters are exactly what we would expect except there's no save modifier.

 

Flamers are really D6 assault and can all wound a single model. So that's a pro and a con, but again, more gambling.

 

Lascannon fire one shot and only have a -3 armor modifier and do D6 wounds.

 

I feel heavies like the lascannon got the biggest shaft, especially if save ++ are still a thing. A regular marine can still survive a lascannon on a 6+, but I wonder if the D6 wounds spreads to multiple models.

 

Edit: With this revelation, i feel this severely hurts the FC if the second profile is still a flamer. I would imagine the FC will become like so:

 

1) Assault 1 - D3 wounds at range -2 save, D6 (possibly still D3) wounds up close -3 save

2) Flamer - D6 hits, no modifier normally, -3 on 6s

 

This is just speculation, but this is, again, a pro and con, and how much of a gambler you are. The first profile might be D3 wounds regardless since if it isn't

...why would anyone ever use the flamer profile.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Moostick

[Prot]

So weapon profiles are out for bolters, flamers and lascannon.

 

Bolters are exactly what we would expect except there's no save modifier.

 

Flamers are really D6 assault and can all wound a single model. So that's a pro and a con, but again, more gambling.

 

Lascannon fire one shot and only have a -3 armor modifier and do D6 wounds.

 

I feel heavies like the lascannon got the biggest shaft, especially if save ++ are still a thing. A regular marine can still survive a lascannon on a 6+, but I wonder if the D6 wounds spreads to multiple models.

 

So this is really in line what I thought and hoped to see, but I agree there's some 'cons' in there too. The "D" profile is in Shadow Wars and seems to work the same way, so to try to answer your question I am guessing that meant it can't carry wounds on to other models.

 

The good news is a marine can make a 6 up save on a lascannon now. That is also the bad news. lol

 

But I hope the Frag Cannon does not end up with the 'flamer' equivalent at short range because that will stink. D6 hits is hopefully not porting over to the weapon.

 

But my guess on the landraiders appears mostly true.... assuming a Landriader has approximately 24 hullpoints you would need 4 lascannons causing 4 hits, 6 'wounds', and D6 rolls of 6 on each hit to fully kill a Landraider .

 

To me that is WAY more preferable to someone (in 7th ed) hitting you with only one of the 4 lascannon shots, rolling a 6 (Boom) or a 5, and the thing is immoblized all game.

 

So I think this is a great change. really looking forward to it.

 

Again point costs are going to mean a lot but at least we can now see the mechanics starting to firm up. :) I'm loving what I'm seeing thus far anyway. Just really, really curious how the Frag cannon will work now.

[Moostick]

The new flamer profile is more of an all-rounder now and it's great, but I agree that it's not great as a secondary profile.

 

It can still potentially erase blobs, but can now also be a potent death star hunter. Imagine a veteran squad with 4 HF and 6 Flamers. I imagine HF will have a -1 modifier, so on rowboat, it'll be a potential 24 3+ saves, and 36 2+ saves. Only 9 need to go through and it's bye bye rowboat. The auto hit is kind of wasted on our better BS, but the big risk, big reward of the unit will be pretty funny.

[Irbis]

I think with today's leak we can bury any usefulness of SW for comparisons. Bolters and flamers work nothing like in SW, I bet rest won't work like that either...

[Vel'Cona]

I think with today's leak we can bury any usefulness of SW for comparisons. Bolters and flamers work nothing like in SW, I bet rest won't work like that either...

 

And I for one am happy this is the case.  To be fair, SW = Necromunda for the most part and that's what, a 20 year old ruleset?  It'd be a pretty awful step back to use those rules for the NEW 40k.  :P

[Prot]

The new flamer profile is more of an all-rounder now and it's great, but I agree that it's not great as a secondary profile.

It can still potentially erase blobs, but can now also be a potent death star hunter. Imagine a veteran squad with 4 HF and 6 Flamers. I imagine HF will have a -1 modifier, so on rowboat, it'll be a potential 24 3+ saves, and 36 2+ saves. Only 9 need to go through and it's bye bye rowboat. The auto hit is kind of wasted on our better BS, but the big risk, big reward of the unit will be pretty funny.

That's a good point. But this lead me to wonder if you can actually do that? I mean if you take a flamer and get D6 out of it, that seems like it would be super good against singular, hard to hit models. I wonder if you still get to apply the full D6 against solo targets?

I think with today's leak we can bury any usefulness of SW for comparisons. Bolters and flamers work nothing like in SW, I bet rest won't work like that either...

And I for one am happy this is the case. To be fair, SW = Necromunda for the most part and that's what, a 20 year old ruleset? It'd be a pretty awful step back to use those rules for the NEW 40k.

I think with every 'leak' it's shown us that a lot of SW is mechanically working more similar to 8th than 7th ed.

-Modified Armour saves.

-Stronger weapons doing multiple wounds in the form of a "Damage" rating.

- 'to hit' modifiers

- Movement characteristic.

it goes on and on... it's just obvious that SW is a squad based game and is going to deal with small arms fire in a much more granular way than 8th edition.

We know that SW is using Necromunda as source material which is using 2nd edition as source material and there's other stuff sprinkled in there. I think it's smart of GW to use some stuff from the past, some stuff from AoS and derive a whole system that is based on getting new players in, and keeping old players happy.

Probably the biggest deal of all is the re-jigging of points. There's no way a Corvus is going to be that expensive (in relation to other flyers) going into 8th. They do want people to use these things. I mean I sold one, but I have more! I want to use mine.

Stuff like Lascannons get a new life thanks to the SW core mechanic. This combined with wounds is such a great thing for Dreads and vehicles. Some of this stuff that's getting a boost may not mean much to something like Ultramarines with Centurions, and Gravcannons, etc. But for Deathwatch this is why I say it's potentially huge. This stuff is at our core, and in some cases it's all that's available to us!

Will the BSSF still exist? Who knows but I'm assuming our only options are still going to be the ol' Landraider, Dreads and Rhino's. Not having to deal with single shot blow ups, or immoblizations.

Still a few big ones remain though. Psychics. Eternal Warrior.Force Weapons. Super friends. Mixed armour/Toughness. Removing casualties. Assaulting out of vehicles.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Prot

[Irbis]

But I hope the Frag Cannon does not end up with the 'flamer' equivalent at short range because that will stink. D6 hits is hopefully not porting over to the weapon.

Uh... Why?

2d6 automatic hits wounding pretty much every infantry model on 2+ is bad now? Especially seeing you missed the biggest deal here, you get autohits within 8 inches, meaning frag guy is no longer idiot tanking every shot for the squad from the very front, he can be way on the back without LOS, and still hit...

Add to that frag has lascannon profile too so 2 marines with frag can pick between offing 4-24 infantry models with autohits or deal 4d6 damage to single model, if stats so far indicate in any way how it will look, lascannons and heavy flamers have nothing on this versatility!

I think with every 'leak' it's shown us that a lot of SW is mechanically working more similar to 8th than 7th ed.

-Modified Armour saves.

-Stronger weapons doing multiple wounds in the form of a "Damage" rating.

- 'to hit' modifiers

- Movement characteristic.

Except none of them work like SW. If the two rulesets had anything in common, it was a year ago, if that, before modifications killed any similarity. No comparing stats, no templates, different values, no AV, no facings, no clunky mechanisms like sustained fire or re-re-reroll, drastically different morale, psychic powers, no more ICs, compared to this 7th edition was closer to 2nd/SW than 8th is...

Will the BSSF still exist? Who knows but I'm assuming our only options are still going to be the ol' Landraider, Dreads and Rhino's. Not having to deal with single shot blow ups, or immoblizations.

According to FAQ, nope. No more formations, 14 standardized army charts in core rules for everyone.

Super friends. Mixed armour/Toughness.

What super friends? FAQ stated they are dead, you now give your bonuses only within [keyword]. If model doesn't have [astartes], [veteran], [death watch] keywords, no piling on DW bonuses for you.

As for mixed armour, where is the problem? You roll saves, apply minus, if any, from gun, check if your stat saved wound. Done.

[Prot]

I'd rather have that flamed template sit on top of 8 Orks and they're all hit. That's why.

 

Super friends also used LOS goofiness. That has not been addressed.

 

Lots on common with shadow wars though. I'm getting a good feel for some of these mechanics in my campaign games. Lots of fun.

[Moostick]

 

That's a good point. But this lead me to wonder if you can actually do that? I mean if you take a flamer and get D6 out of it, that seems like it would be super good against singular, hard to hit models. I wonder if you still get to apply the full D6 against solo targets?

 

 

So having the time to read through it, I can confirm this is the case for flamers, and I also discovered the answer to heavies like Lascannons.

 

On Flamers

"However, when in range, it causes D6 hits that do not have to roll to hit, and this applies even against units of a single model – this can be devastating"

- So it does indeed work on a single model. Rowboat beware! (I have a feeling they are not going to give FC 2D6s though)

 

On Lascannons

"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."

- So it only ever targets one model.

 

With this, I think a major deciding factor on gun like Lascannons will be the sequence in which rolls are taken; whether D6 wounds is rolled before or after a save. It can be either:

 

1) They roll to hit and to wound once, you roll a saving throw once (failed), then they roll D6 wounds and it's applied right after

or

2) They roll to hit, then they roll D6 on amount of to wounds, they roll the resulting number of to wound(s) (1 to 6), and then you roll saves in the same number.

 

I kind of hope it's Case 1; makes for a lot fewer dice. Not having done the math, I believe Case 2 is more effective though (someone with mathhammer skills can correct me). But in general, with the D6 wounds only applying to one model, I have to keep to my initial thought that heavies like Lascannons got the shaft. Higher rate of fire weapons with single or D3 wounds seem to be the better option. Feels more versatile and less risky.

[SnakeChisler]

With the multiple wound Las cannon example given we already have D you'd expect it to work the same way

 

Roll 1 save

 

The thing that caught my attention was that they stated there had been extensive play testing and that had not just been internal and all races were equally viable

 

It looks like With this edition they really want to push the game out to a bigger market, this is going to be huge

[Vel'Cona]

Based on what's been stated thus far, the multiple wounds seem to be on a per model basis rather than AoS' "damage" mechanic (if an attack does multiple damage points it carries on through the entire target unit in AoS). This makes more sense for 40k with the insane amount of shooting we can pull off; assuming you fire 4 Lascannons from a Devastator Squad (or 3 from a Predator Annihilator), from a thematic standpoint it doesn't make sense to lose more than 4 individual models regardless of how many wounds are rolled.

Specifically to DW, however, if the Frag Cannon can suddenly do d3 wounds with the Solid Shot (for example) it's going to be a lot more dangerous to big gribblies and tanks. OFC, being able to drop 2d6 automatic Rending hits with the Frag Round is nothing to sneeze at either. Again, this is all conjecture for now but there's reason to hope.

Really, the #1 concern I have for DW in 8th edition is addressing the massive point cost disparity between the DW and SM codexes, et al.

[Prot]

Snake and Vel... I think you both basically sum up what's going to make this edition work for Deathwatch.

 

The conversation about playtesting with some of the (pardon the expression) most abusive outlets for the game, and the coming away from that and stating, "We are releasing the most balanced version of 40K to date", certainly bodes well for us.

 

D value in a weapon certainly works similar to D, but far, far less abusive. Right now with unmodified D it's possible to simply have something ripped off the table in one shot and you have no say over it. With the "D" value it's similar in that one unsaved wound results in an X value of wounds. That's good enough for me. I'm glad to see D gone from the game for 2 reasons:

 

-Armies with large access to D can't curbstomp expensive 'fun' vehicles, and armies that simply don't have access to D.

- I think the result of this will be "big scary units" aren't as big, aren't as scary, and probably don't cost as much. 

 

Honestly I have friends who like multi Knights, Surges, that giant Ork titan thing... all sorts of stuff like that. If it gets turned down that gives us all a chance to play our cool toys too.

 

The over cost of our stuff is something that if you're honest as a playtester, has to be addressed in 8th. As someone who has both Ultra's and DW rolling, there's just no way I could say with a straight face that DW were ever priced appropriately. And I've been "Playtesting" that aspect of Deathwatch since they came out. I could have given them that info for free a long time ago.... wait a second... I did on their Facebook page (no responses of course!)

 

Let's hope that when we got together as a group and hit their facebook (in a respectable manner of course) that they looked at -some- of that stuff. 

[Silas7]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

3. He who charges goes first! I love this. It actually helps all armies imo, and makes some insanely scary (Orks for example). But why I like this for Deathwatch is we do have unique (albeit too expensive assault options but more on that later) assault options.

 

I think it's iconic for your 'hero' to have something like a fist or hammer... or Heavy Hammer (!?) but right now that's just a bad idea, especially with challenges. Does the second round of close combat flip to initiative? Who knows, but we do know if you rush in with your heavy hammer, your 'best' guy gets to swing that hammer.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

4. Cost re-balancing. This is huge. Maybe one of my bigger gripes. We pay just way too much for a base dude, and the wargear (especially some of it) is so expensive you would never touch it in a real game. Now if they did a 'fair' assessment and they claim they did because they want to release the most 'balanced version of 40K yet', then that means they MUST have evaluated Deathwatch costing. 

 

We know in the past to give 'marines' a chance at competitive levels one of the mechanisms was 'free stuff'.  So we were overcosted, and got nothing at a discount (even trading in an SIA bolter for a.... meltagun meant you basically just became a brutally overcosted space marine.) It goes without saying that at the very least, some things would go down in cost. The big question will become: did they re-balance undercosted stuff as well (looking at Eldar)? I guess we'll see.

 

 4B. This is really a side effect of 4 (cost balancing) and 2 (no templates): I see a positive for items like... the IHB. A terrible weapon, not only over costed but of completely split roles that you are paying for, but rarely using.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Black Shields HOOOO!

[Vel'Cona]

We're going to get a load more balancing information when the psychic phase rules drop tomorrow.  Hoping for some serious work on that one, though it's hard to say since there have been several statements implying the phase will not change much . . .

[Silas7]

Which i hope they are wrong, GW isn't going to ignore how cumbersome the current Psi-phase is.