40K BREAKING: Weapon Profiles Teased

Games Workshop has yet another tease for the new edition – this time it’s the Weapon profiles!

After yesterday’s Unit Profile hints, Games Workshop is filling in more blanks with a quick look at three of the most iconic weapons in the Grim-Dark: The Flamer, the Bolter and the Lascannon:

via Warhammer Community

The three big changes here are the Damage stat, the AP system and templates going away. Again, as we saw yesterday with the unit stats, these are basically a combination of the 40k rules in 7th and the way things work in Age of Sigmar. It’s really like the best of both worlds!

AP changing to a modifier vs a “binary” system is also pretty cool. It’s a throw back to 2nd Edition for sure. Now I’m wondering if that will impact the classic Invulnerable Save. As we saw yesterday a Terminator has a +2 save. Doing some quick math that means if they get hit by a Lascannon shot they will have a +5 save…which is the same as their current Invulnerable Save…

And how about the change away from Templates!? Auto-hitting at 8″ with D6 attacks? That could be pretty devastating! But now that’s got me thinking about how that interacts with the “kill range” of weapons like in 7th. If models in the unit are outside of 8″ will they also take hits or will the extra hits stop at 8″ from the Flamer? Also, what about Wall of Death?

Damage as a stat allows for some extra granularity in the attack. This combined with the Damage Table work together to really create the sense that specific weapons have a specific purpose again. The Boltgun and Flamer are great against low wound models and the Lascannon with it’s possible D6 damage is the weapon of choice vs monsters or vehicles. This does raise the question of how damage will be distributed to units. The article alludes to the fact that the Lascannon only counts as a single hit and the D6 Damage doesn’t spill over to the rest of the unit…

One final note is that D weapons are gone. With the removal of the stat cap of 10, weapons can now go beyond a 10 strength value – and apparently this new system is scalable with the damage matching the effectiveness of the weapon…

If you’re hungry for more info, please go read the full breakdown from Games Workshop.

 

What do you think of these changes? And what other questions does this bring up?

  • GreekSauce

    Very interesting.

    • Heinz Fiction

      Indeed. I think the flamer could be a little to good vs. almost everything, but we have to see the other weapons first…

      • euansmith

        Maybe Sisters of Battle will become a Top Tier army? F-wooooooosh!

  • Stealthbadger

    Already the comments are flamers (which cause d6 hits) are now broken OP vs the other half of comments on the same issue raging, saying that they are now useless. I so look forward to the community input on balancing things in future…

    Oh and of course, obligatory:- ERMAGHHHHAAAAAAD LASGUNS KILL LANDRAIDES WORST EDITOON EVAAAAAAAAA!

    #nerflasgunsnow #thinkofthelandraiders

    • ZeeLobby

      Please don’t bring other comment sections into here. LoL. We have enough issues keeping it civil without people complaining about complaints elsewhere.

      • Stealthbadger

        Ha, ready for round 2 dude, anything here you particularly dislike? 🙂

        • ZeeLobby

          I’ll just miss templates. I thought they were a cool part of the game. Forced you to move things around tactically. Without them it’s time to just blob up.

          I do like the idea that AT weapons cause more wounds. And I like the idea of tanks going to a wound based system. I am curious to see what a melta-gun does. Maybe an extra D6 vs certain unit types. Would be cool.

          • Stealthbadger

            I’m curious on multiple flamers. First I don’t see this much outside of burns boys but the way GW has responded to the rage of 10d6 wounds comments from units of flamers makes me think there’s another mechanic like instead of more hits it ups the strength and AP. We’ll have to see.

          • ZeeLobby

            You say 10d6 wounds? I’m assuming you mean hits?

          • Stealthbadger

            Yep correct, meant hits. Really though, can’t see why people are getting worked up over flamers. It’s not like they’re weapon of the game right now. It’s grav I now want to see, even as a user of it I feel dirty.

            But D is gone so good times.

          • ZeeLobby

            Finally, just so so so so stupid. I really hope it’s a long time before they do something that dumb again.

            And yeah, I mean I’m not completely torn, I just think templates made the game more tactical, and added a cool visual flare to the game. I don’t think d6 hits is necessarily all that bad. Flamers were kind of prized because of their ability to guarantee hits though, and you knew exactly how many. Now it’ll be a lot more random. It’s just a personal opinion of mine when it comes to game mechanics, but for me, more random = bad.

          • Stealthbadger

            All I’ll say is I have two wyverns. Oh good god the blast templates….

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha, and thank god they had them. IG was pretty lackluster without them. Damn, this change like really sucks for IG artillery lovers. Just gotta imagine it’ll be a lot less exciting not putting pie plates all over the table. I mean it was a cool visual effect, even if somehow the statistics end up the same way.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            I’ll live. No Idea what FW’s gonna do about Purge though.

          • ZeeLobby

            You might, but my friend had a lot of fun putting em down. It feels like they’re making a big impact, and cinematically the shells are screaming in (he’d make the noise sometimes). Now it’s just a lot more dice rolling, haha.

            Plus now gone are all the tactics, like smart placement, maximizing hits, scalpaling out individuals, etc.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I have 4 hehehehe.

          • Patrick Boyle

            Personally I’ll take the randomness if it removes stuff that slows the game(needing to take the time to get perfect 2″ spacing in the movement phase) and adds ambiguity(‘who exactly is covered by this template? From my angle that guy isn’t…’, ‘Exactly what direction is that scatter, I think it’s more like this..’, and that’s not even getting into barrage…).

            A faster game with less opportunity for disagreements is vastly preferable to me than relying on my opponent to play poorly for certain weapons to be useful.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Amen.

          • Shawn

            I’m with you on this one Zee.

          • Valeli

            I don’t see why either, unless I’m misreading something. My impression is that a flamer just averages 3.5 hits now?

            Previously it wasn’t all that difficult to snag a lot more grots/orks/gaunts/etc than that with a well placed template…..

            Maybe I’m missing something.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Maybe you’re missing that they cause multiple hits vs single models as well, so they are decent vs small elite units, monstrous creatures and light vehicles as well. Of course anti-tank weapons are better vs the latter but then they suck vs hordes…

          • Valeli

            Indeed, I hadn’t thought of that. Interesting.

          • Xodis

            I see what you are saying, but at least horde units dont have to spend 30+ minutes spreading everyone out, they are as screwed no matter how close so lets get this game going.

          • ZeeLobby

            True it’s a Time saver. Just not sure it’s worth the loss of tactics and fun. I mean putting down a blast only yo have it scatter back to your own force was hilarious. Using a blast to scalpal out a character or clear models near an objective was great.

          • AircoolUK

            It would also allow your horde to manoeuvre a bit more easily as you could pack them together. Also, you can now put more horde models on the table without having to worry about spacing them out 🙂

          • euansmith

            More hordes models on the table = more horde model sales 😉

          • Bigalmoney666

            templates forced movement to be the opposite of tactical. It was more important to spread them the maximum distance apart rather than keep them behind every scrap of cover you can find.
            Maybe it was just me.

          • Fergie0044

            I’ll miss the tactical placement of models that templates caused but all well, a small sacrifice for a new edition.

            so no one talking about templates causing multiple wounds to single models? That’s a massive change! Makes, say for example, a vindicator able to one shot monstrous creatures? (assuming good rolls)

          • Lumanil

            Only FLAMER templates are gone. They didn’t mention the others.
            You should read the official post on warhammer-community.com. This is a bit misleading here.

          • euansmith

            I think that the army favours spreading out in the real world, so it is “realistic”; but, as a one time Ork Mob player, I won’t miss having to fiddle around spreading out my Boyz in an un-Orky way, rather than just shoveling them quickly across the table.

          • Muninwing

            – it meant who was where mattered.
            – it meant distances, formation, and location mattered
            – it meant that noting how far away the short-range flamer units were and adjusting accordingly was important

            there were a lot of factors to consider.

            if you reduce anything down to over-simplified, it can be misunderstood or misrepresented any way you want.

          • Bigalmoney666

            You still removed the closest units as casualties first.

          • Muninwing

            in 5th? owner of the unit decided what units were assigned wounds.

            meaning that if you had a unit of 2-wound models, like Nobs or Paladins, you could spread the wounds through the unit before removing any of them, essentially increasing their resilience and effectiveness by a great deal…

          • Bigalmoney666

            in 7th, you always allocate the wounds to the model closest to the firing unit, and that process continues until the wound pool is depleted. So I don’t think you can spread the wounds over multi wound models.

          • Muninwing

            yes. that is exactly what i said.

            sorry, i’m having a hard time following this thread now. i think there’s a different place where we are/were talking about wound allocation.

            removing from the closest is not the tactical part. trying to control who gets lost, where you are hit, and how your own weapons are brought to bear is the part that makes it tactical.

            if you just reduce it down to “everyone spreads out” well, that’s one way of dealing with it. it’s not the only thing you do, though, unless you’re ignoring a ton of the actual options and decisions you have to make.

            so to say that templates made things “less tactical” means that you are ignoring all the effects and options that such a cause or effect has on a unit, because you played with it in a very one-dimensional way.

          • SprinkKnoT

            I liked Templates until I started playing a horde army. Then it became a game of making sure every model in my army was 2 inches away from one another.

          • Muninwing

            … but that means that you can control your opponent’s choices.

            lump some units closer together. the flamers will go in that direction. set a trap for them using a clustered unit as bait.

            there’s lots of ways of using even that for your advantage.

          • SprinkKnoT

            Yeah, if the enemy only had a single flamer on a squad or one blast template, something I never saw in my meta. If there was a way to get 6-8 models under a template, that’d almost always turn into 20-30 hits.

          • Philip Estabrook

            I like templates too, but to be honest, randomized hits are faster and easier anyway. Also allows for less unit deployment silliness. I know I deployed units in bizarre ways to minimize template opportunities.

          • Muninwing

            faster, easier, not necessarily better.

            there’s a lot of changes that they are making for the sake of simplicity. some will be homeruns, some will miss the mark.

          • Lumanil

            Do we have proof that templates are gone ? So many people raging here and i don’t see why. The profile above just states that a template for flamers seems gone. And we don’t even know if the “assault d6” is the same as before. This could mean, that flamers do d6 hits, if anyone charges or is charged by the flamer guy.

          • Evil_Adam

            “The three big changes here are the Damage stat, the AP system and templates going away.” yes, we have proof that templates are gone.

          • Lumanil

            Uhhhmm. This was posted by the author here at BolS and is in no way official ?!?
            And this also seems only pointed to the shown chart and therefore hints at the “flamer templates” are gone.

          • Evil_Adam

            Ah crap, sorry I was thinking that was a typical copy paste from BoLS… it does specifically say on warhammer community that the flamer doesn’t use a template.

          • Duncan Parker Newton-Gaines

            The head game designer said templates were gone in the live Q&A the other day.

    • Gentle_Ben

      Can a lasgun kill a landraider? Do we know how the new wounds system will work? Couldn’t it have a high enough toughness that it might be immune? Or was it confirmed somewhere else that this is a definite thing that could happen?

      • Matt Razincka

        They did confirm that any weapon can hurt any model. But it will be exceedingly rare in some cases.

      • Stealthbadger

        Everything CAN wound anything now.

        You know the same way like I can potentially beat a Navy seal in a fist fight, it’s not 100% impossible but I’m probably going to need 99.9 goes at it. I reckon I’ll be dead after 1. A lot like a lasgun guardsman really.

        • Gentle_Ben

          Lol gotcha.

        • Muninwing

          but can you beat up a sherman tank?

          if a lasgun can take even one wound off a landraider, the system is a little silly… because if anything wounds on a 6 like it could be, a 30-strong blob doubletapping (for 30 hits) will get an average of 5 wounds off of a Landraider. something that a lascannon cannot reliably do.

          though i’m wondering if certain tanks (or maybe all that aren’t light vehicles) will do something like ignore the first wound caused by each hit… meaning that ONLY multiwound hits will affect them at all, and lighter-duty one-wound weapons would not have much of an effect.

          • Xodis

            It was said that it would take like 500 lasgun shots to take out a Land Raider…..Im ok with that ratio.

          • Juan Carlos González

            With the statistics shown for a Dreadnought, you’d need 144 lasgun hits on average to bring it down, assuming you can wound on a six. Sounds impressive, but it’s hardly beyond what most IG commanders can muster, and it’s a definite downgrade from “you need S6 or more to hurt it”.

            Impractical? Definetly, but if nothing else is in range massed lasgun or bolter or shoota fire is gonna be a surprisingly effective way of shaving that last wound of two remaining after the lascannons hit.

            Vehicles seem to be more fragile than ever.

          • Xodis

            Again I completely disagree, Vehicles sound more dangerous than ever since they can technically shrug off that Lascannon hit that should punch right through. Sure it turns their 3+ into a 6+, but we still dont know of all the extra rules that can effect that roll like Command points, cover saves, Extra Armor, etc…
            Even if lasguns DO take out the last point or two of health, that makes total sense, since in your scenario those Lascannons probably left a hole or two in the armor where they can target the good stuff.

          • Juan Carlos González

            I’m working with what we know here, and from what we know the chances of two-shotting a dreadnought to death (one-shotting is indeed impossible) is around 20%, assuming both shots hit and disregarding things like cover. With the exact same conditions (confirmed hit, no cover), under current rules there’s around an 8% chance of killing it with a lascannon hit, so around 16% with two. On the other hand, under current rules 3 lascannon hits will kill a dreadnought through HP deprivation 30% of the time, while in 8th 3 lascannon hits have a 28% to do the same. Statistically, and unless they do something to increase survivability, the Dreadnought is somewhat more fragile (though not as much as I predicted), since the removal of the chance of a one-shot is offset by it’s newfound vulnerability to things that couldn’t even scratch it before, like lasguns or heavy shootas.

          • Xodis

            I dont think Hot-Shot and Vengeance rounds will do the trick any better either. Having a 4+ save against any weapon that will still need 6’s the have a chance is still going to do well Needing an average of 3-4 lascannon shots to take down a Dreadnought is a big improvement in my book.
            Also, did you typo and switch the %’s? You stated that in 8e its a 28% chance and current rules its 30%, so it would be statistically less vulnerable.

          • Juan Carlos González

            I’d expect weapons with AP3 will have a -2 to saves, so the Dreadnought will have to roll 5+.

          • Xodis

            I dont, with the changes to weapons -2 AP is a lot more powerful this edition so I expect it will get pulled back. That would make Terminators roll a 4+, and it seems a little too strong unless they jack the points up.

          • Duncan Parker Newton-Gaines

            We also know that vehicle damage charts are going to be a thing (Per the live Q&A), and they’ll get less effective as they take more wounds, but we don’t know what they look like. it’s possible their saves will be reduced, or their toughness, making them easier to take out as they take damage.

          • Juan Carlos González

            I hope they at least make a standard chart instead of one for each vehicle. I was always misremebering the old one, so I don’t want to have to memorize a dozen.

          • Muninwing

            if Lascannons do D6 wounds, you cannot one-shot kill them

            if they get any save, even a 6+, from that las blast, that means that they are able to possibly avoid a hit that could do some serious damage. so the chance for 0 wounds instead of the average of 3.5 per hit and the possibility of 6 per hit.

            with one-shot results, the new Dreads have a higher chance (100%) of walking away — 8 wounds and a las-blast that can only do 6 max.

            i’ll take it.

            now, though, that tri-las predator build is interesting. three chances (one that rerolls, if twinlinked still applies) to do D6 wounds. but you could roll poorly (like me) and even with 3 hits do 3 wounds, and one gets saved. that’s 2 wounds out of 8, or 25% damage whereas with one miss and two hits in 7th that’s two HP gone AND two effects from the table… and with AP2 Las it’s a +1 on the table you have a pretty good chance of rendering it useless or outright destroying it.

            on the other hand, hitting with 2/3 of the shots (that above rolling poorly) means 2-12 wounds. average is 7. so strictly on average, you will not do enough to a Dread to kill it, but you have the chance… and you can weaken it such that a tac squad or another unit might be able to finish it off.

            i like this.

            now add more qualifiers. i’d love if (purely conjecture) tanks made the first wound done by a weapon need to reroll to wound. so a bolter might hit and roll a 6 to wound, but then need another 6 to actually make the wound stick… then the Dread would get its save. possible, but rare. on the other hand, that las blast would have an easy time with the reroll to wound… and then if it does more wounds past the first they’d carry though just fine.

            but, who knows? we’ll see soon.

            this more than anything else, has gotten me excited about 8th ed. i’m sure i will not like all the changes, but if vehicles are both more killable and more durable (fewer one-shots, but able to be whittled down despite survivability), then that solves a ton of problems that occur within the game.

            then again, if they fix grav to not be so stupid good, then a great deal of the game will fix itself — including the meta.

          • Muninwing

            if you’re committing 288 las shots at my dread, then my marines live long enough to get into close combat.

            that’s what Dreads are really best at — distraction, threat, and intimidation.

            sure, they beat face if they hit enemy lines. and sure they can cream a whole unit easily if they are properly supported and if the rules don’t switch against them again (extra hits from losing combat in 5th, grenades in 6th/7th, etc). but the threat they pose has always been a more effective tool than their actual damage output.

          • euansmith

            “… and then, when the 500 lasbolt hit the landraider, that sucker just friggin’ melted! Right there in front of us!”

          • Muninwing

            concentrating fire in one location would kinda look like that, with energy-based weapons (at least non-kinetic, mass-based ones)

          • Muninwing

            that’s where i’m willing to concede between realism (such as it is) and functionality.

            500 shots is… doable? during a game. a Crusader variant (maybe a redeemer too, though people are complaining a lot about flame weapons now) can easily kill that many guardsmen before it succumbed to those shots. and it would probably take more than 250 points of guard to do that over a game.

            it is like the idea of shooting a tank with small arms and expecting it to blow up… maybe the bullets could jam treads through sheer volume, or some other minor physical limitation?

            we can handwave that and say it’s “future tech” and be done with it. who knows how Ceramite and las-blasts react with each other? so how can we do a physical analysis?

          • Xodis

            I think its less that the small arms eventually “ping” their way in and more that 40K vehicles are not designed win intelligent manners. The Grey Knights Baby Carrier is a classic example of …WTF? Landraiders are obviously very well protected, but all the access ports and weapons leave gaps that can be taken advantage of.

          • Muninwing

            yeah, it’s a weird cross between

            “we have futuristic weapons and materials with properties you cannot dream of”

            and

            “so, i’m gonna decorate my stuff with useless ornate frippery that will in fact increase my odds of being injured, like bullet channels

          • I’m not worried so much about Lasguns wounding heavy armor, partially because their are all kinds of ways the rules might mitigate it (like your example), but also because the 30-strong blob will probably have 3 Heavy and/or 3 Special weapons that , if they function as they should, will do far more damage to the tank. If the rebalancing has worked properly, lasgunning a Land Raider to death will be a colossal waist of time. I’m going to give them a lot of leeway on things that I’m not that fond of, if they have made a serious go at balance.

          • Muninwing

            there’s the issue, right?

            “if they have made a serious go at balance.”

            we have many reasons to be cautiously optimistic. but we have many reasons to doubt that GW will follow through. the quality of their product has suffered universally for the last 5-6 years easily, and they’ve made some ill-advised drastic moves more than once.

            when people were scared of “sigmarization” it was really just not trusting GW to do a good job, and was built on all the other times that they have in fact released a deeply flawed product and taken no responsibility for it.

            i hope they are past that. but they have not done enough to convince me that that’s likely.

          • I was pretty skeptical, and I still am, but nothing I’ve heard yet is enough to counter what I think the best thing about this release is. The change in tone. They reached out to the tournament crowd for playtesting. Think on that for a minute. The “your playing the game wrong” attitude was set aside in favor of asking the people (that were previously despised) who think the most about the game’s balance for help. That’s an amazing turn around for a corporation of any kind. There still a big chance that they’ll have messed it up or that they want follow through on their promises, but acknowledging a problem is the first step. I think we owe it to them to at least wait until we have more of the picture to freak out.

          • Muninwing

            i’m actually getting more and more on board with the ideas that are coming out. i’m still skeptical, and i still have many reasons to distrust GW’s ability to handle this, but as releases go this one is actually far more reasonable than their last three.

            and i will give them credit for their about-face on attitude… though it barely mitigates the negatives that they earned from having that terrible “no you’re playing wrong” attitude in the first place — since that was not their party line forever.

            i wonder… iirc the old forums on their old non-sales-based webpage got pretty toxic. they either didn’t understand how to moderate, or managed to somehow elicit nerdrage for nothing (like still happens, but all in one place), and they were nowhere near understanding how FAQ-ing works so they created a lot of rage on their own through negligence. i wonder if the bad experiences had and witnessed by the company from that era managed to influence the direction they took.

            because it should not have taken them five years to bother to ask tournament players what kind of balance is important to tournament play. that’s a no-brainer.

          • The cynic in me wonders if the last couple of years that they’ve been working on this they haven’t been sandbagging a bit. They seemed to give in to the worst practices. Using formations and rules to sell models. Favoring new factions over older ones that desperately needed attention (both rules and models). Catering almost exclusively to existing players instead of trying to grow the game. I wonder if all these base instincts were allowed in order to make this new edition feel even more like a breath of fresh air.

          • georgelabour

            Mobility kills can still count as a kill.

            Which is probably why it’s not best to bring up WW2 tanks when you’re asking if infantryman with small arms can take them out.

          • Yep. I remember reading about a Panther tank being taken out by a jeep with a machine gun. Basically the Panther was in one of the narrow lanes in a village (from memory) so could not rotate its turret 360 degrees. The jeep popped out behind it and machine gunned in the rear until the Panther crew basically jumped out and ran away.

            Similarly in Italy one of the tactics of the New Zealand division for fighting Tiger tanks was to fire smoke shells at them. With a lucky hit you could set the engine on fire, which was a kill shot. Also the crew would occasionally bail out which was also a kill.

          • georgelabour

            I didn’t mention it in my original reply but there’s also incidents of infantry armed with obsolete anti tank rifles disabling tanks by merely shooting out vision blocks or knocking off treads.

            Amazing how useless your high tech death machine becomes when no one can see out of it, and it can just turn in place until it runs out of gas. ^_^

          • Yep – the russians collected their anti tank rifle teams into large groups and aimed at the tracks from the side of the tank – weakest armour was often that behind the actual road wheels.

            Of course the point being that a weapon from 38,000 years in the future may actually be both man portable and have at least some potential to inflict effective kills on a vehicle.

          • Ghorgul

            This is true, and I pretty sure that even modern day tanks can be harmed significantly by normal assault rifle fire or machine gun fire. The trick should be to shoot at all the external elements visible outside, optics, gunsights, reactive armor elements etc.
            Optics and gunsights will be very difficult to protect, even armored plexiglass can be disfigured by normal rifle firing, rendering the optics unusable. Also russian tanks you can see in Youtube are sporting these huge IR radiators or some sort of range finders, I don’t know the purpose of those but I can guarantee normal rifle fire can hurt those.
            A tank with disabled optics and destroyed reactive armour then is much more susceptible to infantry AT weaponry and heavier AT elements available.
            Bottom line, Infantry weaponry can’t “kill” a tank in traditional sense, but as said above already, a tank that is disabled to the level that it cannot fire efficiently is equivalent of a “kill”. Besides, actually in War it is always much more beneficial to injure 10 to the point of being disabled than to utterly destroy one single target.

          • euansmith

            I was reading a book about WWI tanks (appropriate to 40k 😉 ) where German machinegunners were pulling the slugs out of their ammo and turning them round so they they had a dimpled side rather than a rounded side. Apparently the dimple caused the round to have greater a armour piercing effect.

          • Muninwing

            note that i brought up the Sherman with the operant action of “beat up” — even with a club, how much damage can i do against a moving tank in melee without incendiaries or explosives? maybe a short-term jam-up of the treads, but not a ton otherwise.

            now though i’m remembering Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade… maybe if you’re a named character you can do more?

            but yeah, it all comes down to definition. “take them out” has different meanings even on just the time-scale.

            a tank that can limp away from a battlefield, reapportion its crew and supplies to a more functional tank, and can conserve certain key components counts as a survivor on the short term, but a loss on the middle scale.

            and also remember (and perhaps apply this to the “500 las shots to take out a landraider” qualifier that has changed my mind here) that a one in a million shot is always possible if the physics allow. and the average infantry units in WWII were not assumed to be able to easily deal with tanks, though they may have been able to in a pinch or get lucky. they had dedicated anti-tank weapons for a reason, especially as the war went on.

          • Munn

            Yeah cause we all know how good lasguns are at taking out big scaries like riptides and stormsurges right now. God forbid the same thing happen to the land raider.

          • Muninwing

            mass of fire has always been the drawback of large creatures. benefitting from other creature rules has allowed some of these units to perform better than their points should allow for the last edition or two.

            complaining because you have a weakness, i understand makes sense to a tau player — since most of their actual weaknesses are mitigated by other freebie advantages, but it’s part of the game design for other forces.

        • Drpx

          I forget who said it exactly, but there was a soldier awhile back who explained, “you can have the best training and equipment in the world and some goat herder with a rifle can still ruin your day.”

        • Spacefrisian

          Cheap conscripts, 100 per unit and Chenkov?
          So iheard you brought a Landraider.

          Scratch that i heard you brought an Emperor Titan, iam going to flashlight it to death.

          • Stealthbadger

            What roll to wound do you need?

          • Muninwing

            if it’s still d6 based, and you can always wound, then the thought is that you always wound regardless of S or T on a 6+

            but that’s even flawed. if you remember the mechanic for BS above 5 in 7th, it gives rerolls on a miss. rerolls on wounding rolls on the success would add a big gap that would accurately compensate for the differences in S and T.

            so
            S3T3 is a 4+
            S3T4 is a 5+
            S3T5 is a 6+
            S3T6 is a 6+, but successes need to reroll on a 2+
            S3T7 is a 6+, but successes need to reroll on a 3+
            S3T8 is a 6+, but successes need to reroll on a 4+
            S3T9 is a 6+, but successes need to reroll on a 5+
            S3T10 is a 6+, but successes need to reroll on a 6+
            and S3 vs anything T11+ autofails

            and that’s just one way of handing it. so even that assumption is flawed.

          • Stealthbadger

            Thank you for making my point 🙂

          • Muninwing

            imagine what that same unit could do to infantry.

            but yeah, the Chenkov extra firing was in fact what i was concerned about before the “500 lasgun shots to fell a landraider” comment.

            because if they hit on 4+ and wound on 6+ all the time, that means 12 shots per wound done before saves. 30 shooting four times averages 10 wounds in one round.

            that seems ridiculous.

        • best description ever dude!

      • SIA

        GW said that anything can hurt anything yes even a lasgun can hurt a landraider but it would have a slim chance of it

      • Parthis

        A lasgun?

        No.

        Many, many lasguns? Yes. But your Land Raider now also has saving throws. You now also have command points, which means re-rolls, and so on.

        Anything can hurt anything, just with varying scales of difficulty.

      • Calgar

        I think they said it would take an average of 500 lasgun shots to kill a land raider. I see anti infantry weapons as more of trying to finish off that land raider that is down to 1 wound on a luck shot, rather than actually trying to take down a fresh one.

        Think how many infantry those 500 lasgun shots could kill instead….. like half a dozen or possibly more!!!

        • Gentle_Ben

          yeah by my math it would be 288 to kill the marine dread so 500 for a land raider sounds about right.

          • Astmeister

            But it also takes about 500 shots from lasguns to kill a Tyrannofex now. And they are not really considered to be unkillable.

          • Simon Bates

            Nor does anybody seriously attempt to kill Tyranofexes with lasguns, even though it would in theory be possible to do so.

          • Astmeister

            That is indeed true. However since vehicles and MCs can be crippled now, it might be worth considering to fire lasguns at these super big targets.

          • Simon Bates

            I guess, though it’s not an efficient use of small arms fire, so either you’re desperate, or you have nothing better to shoot at. In general, it’s going to be poor target prioritising to shot a load of bolters or lasguns at a heavy vehicle or MC.

        • AircoolUK

          I would imagine that a Land Raider has a ton of wounds and a godlike saving throw.

          Whilst I understood the whole impervious armour thing, it didn’t really reflect the fact that all vehicles have weak spots. A Land Raider could be immobilised by shooting its tracks, but you’d need concentrated fire from standard weaponry (not Tau 😉 to get enough energy to break or bend the weak point.

          Hopefully it won’t be like Ewoks killing Stormtroopers by bashing a small rock on their armoured helmet.

    • Graham Roden

      I agree totally OP, I mean you land D6 hits and with my typical dice rolling you hit 1 man. Even if this rolls into 30k the likelihood of rolling 10 6’s for a flames squad is minute. I’ll stick my neck on the block here and say I prefer templates, but they are very prone to creative placing. No templates is fairer.

      • Stealthbadger

        Then you are playing people who bunch up models. This is not a strong tactic.

        • Munn

          Spreading out models exactly 2″ apart is a sh*t thing to be Mandatory though.

          • Juan Carlos González

            It’s a risk/reward thing. Bunching up makes you vulnerable to table sweepers but it’s easier to focus fire and assault. Spreading out makes those weapons less effective but you’re spread thin and some of your guns will be out of range as a result.

    • Kinsman

      Unless, as in AoS, Flamers are limited to 1 per unit. Then they’re much more spread out and less likely to crush stuff. Also, if the mission structure is similar to AoS, dudes dying in droves won’t really change the outcome of the game as they are simply fodder who allow your heavy lifters to capture objectives, etc.

      • Spacefrisian

        Burnaboyz are still made for Orks, just saying.

    • Kyle

      Brah, D6 wounds for a lascannon hit is weaksauce. The new meta is 800 man infantry blocks of lasgun spam lololol /s
      8th looks like it is gonna be awesome

      • Dan Brugman

        people said the same thing about AoS at first but I can tell you that by the current meta at tourney’s only one list that’s competitive involves spamming based on weak individual models (kunnin’ rukk) and that only works cause of an overlooked synergy. If Leadership in 40k works anything like bravery in AoS then droves of weak troops will evaporate much faster than you realize.

        • Kyle

          I was being sarcastic about the infantry block thing and making fun of some of the other comments about 8th over the past couple of days. I do think 8th is gonna be awesome.

    • Juan Carlos González

      With flamers and explosives more unreliable than ever, not even Bolters having AP and careful tactical positioning not being a “thing” anymore, methinks it’s the age of the horde army.

      WAAAGH!!!

      • Maybe, but Termies got a significant buff with 2 wounds. Who knows what other elites got buffed. The loss of AV means that I don’t need to fear moving my tanks forward and exposing rear armor. I also won’t be risking losing them to one penetrating shot.

    • Tushan

      Lets see here, nowdays I take a risk by getting close to an ork mob, even tankshocking them closer together in orde for the two flamers to easely cover 16-ish orks.

      In 8:ed there is NONE risk-reward to EVER getting close to the same ork mob for what 4 orks to die from two flamers.

      The flamer rule is a bad joke at best and will effectively kill of all and any armies that rely on flamers for anti horde, the very thing they are supposed to be good at plus forcing you to risk getting close to a horde in the first place.

      Who the F will ever want to pod or drive his salamanders or SoBs close to a blob of genesteelers or orks etc when all your effed up flamer can do is hit 3.5 of them killing 1-2.

      People who think flamers will be op are in serious need of brain surgery.

  • Devourer

    I think it is very sad that templates are gone. So unit positioning becomes even more irrelevant 🙁
    I should be happy because I play tyranids for 15 years now and they hate templates but I am not. It does not feel right that the flamer guy waiting at the bottleneck to hold it against a horde is not effective anymore. I liked these conematic elements

    • Hendrik Booraem VI

      +1 internets for the “conematic” pun

      • Devourer

        😀

      • vash113

        Agreed, that’s the pun of the week!

    • Calgar

      Make positioning irrelevant could also be looked at as speeding up the game. No more spending 5 minutes making sure the whole ork mob is exactly 2 inches from each other so they dont get wrecked by arty.

      Every unit has to do the same spacing dance if there are blast weapons in play, and that time per unit adds up over a game, even if its just a few extra seconds.

      You could look at it as now you get to group your units up in cool looking fluffy formations, or you can start using formations to give you a tactical advantage and not have to worry about spacing for surviving blasts and templates.

      • Devourer

        I agree that it speeds up the game. For me it just reduces the show effect a lot in return. Artillery shells raining down, flamers surprising guys hiding in corners… I liked it a lot and the randomness of the D6 replaces some tactical aspect of the game. But I was a fan of WHF with flanking bonus and falling giant template so I guess I am a little special with that 😀

        • Munn

          I don’t really see how ‘stay 2″ apart’ was particularly tactical.

          • Juan Carlos González

            It’s what modern armies do. WWI taught that advancing as a solid blob against modern weapons is a really bad idea.

  • Hendrik Booraem VI

    I’m still trying to figure out if I should make plasma vets or flamer vets for my command squad now…

    Based on those stats, Plasma guns should be something like Rapid Fire 1, S7, AP-3, Damage D3, Gets Hot. I guess Plasma Cannons would be Heavy 1, S7, AP-3, Damage D6, Gets Hot?

    • Thomson

      I doubt that plasma guns deal more than one point of damage

      • AircoolUK

        Yes, they’re intended to be anti-infantry able to crack heavy armour.

        Melta weapons were always designed to be close range anti-tank solutions. I always found the whole MSU Melta thing a bit silly.

        • AircoolUK

          However, saying that, Plasma Cannons are Blast weapons currently, so they are intended for multiple targets. So Plasma Gun 1 Damage. Plasma Cannon D3 Damage?

          • Blinghop

            it would be d3 hits. They specified that damage does not carry past the individual model.

        • Heinz Fiction

          Well, in the current edition plasma guns are one of these weapon types that are pretty good vs anything but heavy vehicles (which is bad design in my opinion). If they were anti infanty, they should not have more than S5.

    • Andrew

      Plasma cannons are/were a template weapon so I think it will be more like: Heavy 3, S7, AP-3, D2(or 3), Gets Hot.

      • Karru

        Most likely it will also “suffer” the fate of RNG. A D6 shots if hit maybe.

    • Djbz

      I could see D3 damage on plasma guns if Gets hot caused the weapon to hit the shooter.

      A depending on how they (hopefully) nueter grav weapons they should still be worth it.

      • AircoolUK

        I’ve been saying it for years – make Gravguns as per Rogue Trader where they reduced the targets movement stat instead of causing damage. Obviously it would have to be for one turn only (as in RT it was permanent).

        With Move speeds likely to be increased for many units, old style grav guns would, well, be like old style grav guns.

        Not going to happen though 🙂 They were always obtusely overpowered.

    • Munn

      they will be AP 2 at BEST ap -3 will be fairly rare.

  • SilentPony

    Jeez, flamers sure to a hit huh? Christ, thank god 30k is going to stay in 7th.
    I mean I could get 7-9 models with a single template if its a horde army or I get a good location for a drop pod.

    • EnTyme

      And you have an opponent who doesn’t know how to space out his minis.

      • SilentPony

        Kinda moot. I have a 10 man flamer squad for my 30k death guard. With their shred upgrade I can devastate 20man tac squads easily.
        Numbers always win

        • EnTyme

          And 10d6 wounds won’t do the same thing?

          • ZeeLobby

            It’s definitely a lot more open to randomization. He’s guaranteed getting those hits with a template. He could roll poorly and do much worse without.

          • SilentPony

            And I guess Helldrakes, and hellhounds will just have to be retired.

          • SIA

            For all we know they might get d6+4 hits or something like that since they are vehicle based. Also in my experience I only get 2-3 hits with template or blasts anyway so its not that big a change for me.

          • Parthis

            Not at all. The flamer now has a use against single models; it’s D6.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, you just miss out on the positioning now which is kind of unfortunate. And the fun of putting out templates, which had it’s moments. They are more effective against single targets, and I’m not sure that logically that would make sense, but it is what it is.

          • Keith Wilson

            unless they say you cant cause more hits than there are models in a unit with a single shot?

          • Karru

            As things are now, they are indeed better at taking down single targets than larger units. All of the “special” rules seems to be attached to the weapon and shown in the box. Only “mystery” about it is the Assault weapon part, but that most likely just means the same thing it does now.

          • Xodis

            No they specifically said that a Flamer can ruin a single multiwound targets day.

          • Mr.Custodes

            That’s because it will…Imagine if a unit of Lootas lit up on a lone character now – it’s going to get destroyed.

          • Xodis

            Oh Im not saying it shouldnt work that way lol, only that it counts as d6 hits on the single model as he gets a concentrated flame bath and isnt limited by unit size.

          • AircoolUK

            You are correct, I had to re-read to get that bit.

          • Walter Vining

            this

          • SilentPony

            No. Why would you think it would? I go from doing guaranteed dozens of wounds, to random numbers.
            The Average would be about 35. That’s not bad.
            But with templates, all ten firing, you can get 60+ easy.
            Plus a cap out of 60 is bull.

          • Munn

            It sounds like you play really bad people and are taking advantage of them. Quit being a jerk.

  • ZeeLobby

    I will forever miss templates. Thought it was a really fun part of the game. But I’m a big fan of tank wounds, and AT d6 wound causing weapons. I wonder if some weapons, like meltaguns, will get like an extra D6 vs vehicles or something.

    • Stealthbadger

      I understand this, I’m indifferent on this really. It might be quicker I guess. I never had an opponent gift me 9 hits by bunching up in a tear drop formation though.

      However, what is hilarious is the amount of Facebook comment thinking it got a nerf on range to 8″.

      “My flamer template was 12”

      Sure it is buddy, sure it is…

      • Sonic tooth

        i know its not relevant to conversation but “stealthbadger”? thats a fantastic name!!

        • Stealthbadger

          Thank you!

      • ZeeLobby

        Oh, I’ve totally tank-shocked units into a bunch though, or forced them through a narrow gap to reach an objective. This just removes cool tactics like that.

        • Stealthbadger

          Yeah, can’t argue with that but I wonder if tank shocking etc is going too?

          • ZeeLobby

            Man, I hope not. Probably is though if they’re going the simple = better route. I can understand changing how tanks get damaged, because of how influential they’ve been from edition to edition, but some of their rules are really what differentiated 40K from fantasy.

          • The Rout

            I reckon it’ll just be HoW with varying damage/ hits depending on the vehicle being used (bigger=more hits) with maybe a leadership modifier for battleshock. Then the infantry would get to fight back. That’s what im hoping for anyway.

    • Andrew

      I’m going to miss not being able to cover multiple units/vehicles with the large blast template, but more than that I wont miss having to agonise about the spacing every model in a squad. I realise it added a layer of strategy to the game but it also slowed the game down and bored me to tears.

      • Karru

        That’s the thing that makes me somewhat accepting to see Templates go. Especially now that I’ve been playing both Orks and Imperial Guard Infantry Army, spacing out my models was painfully boring. It wasn’t the case of “you don’t need to space them out that much dude”. You had to, because if you didn’t, you could easily lose half of your unit into a single blast.

        • Andrew

          Yup.

    • Vachones

      It does change the game, less time on model placement (which can be tedious, lets face it) and perhaps more time on unit movement, which is appropriate given the scale of 40k.

  • Derek Lee

    So, are bolters just +1 S lasguns now? Snotlings, boyz, genestealers, and guardsmen will get their full armor save?

    • Hendrik Booraem VI

      Yep. If bolters are even that good… But hey, they’ll still take down a Wraithknight sometimes. But then, so will those flashlights…

      • Derek Lee

        God I hope there will be special ammo, chapter/legion rules modifying bolters, and/or you can just pick the librarian’s buff powers.

        Edit: I sense my mech army will lose PA bodies and pick up more armor.

        • Parthis

          I’m sure Sternguard, Deathwatch, etc will still have special ammo that can increase AP. That was their thing.

    • SIA

      Looks that way, unless weapons that used to have ap – will give an armor bonus, IE lasgun makes a 4+ save into a 3+ save

      • Xodis

        I can’t see that because then Terminators would get a 1+ save. Maybe they will just be Strength 2 Rend 0 and we dont have to worry about them at all really.

        • Walter Vining

          none of the profiles have a “rend” value if you go by what was released today

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            AP and Rend are the same systems…

          • Xodis

            Correct its called AP in 40K still, but its the same function as Rend in AoS.

    • ZeeLobby

      I’m honestly fine with this, if all other weapons have been equally reduced in effectiveness, which it looks like they will be. I’d much rather go back to shootouts then unit trades.

      • Stealthbadger

        Do ork and guard players know what an armour save is? Have they ever had to take one?

        • ZeeLobby

          LoL. I never did with my orks. My DE wore paper bags I’m pretty sure!

        • Djbz

          When fighting each other they did.

    • Severius_Tolluck

      Due to them saying strength modifiers are returning, so ipso facto it ends up being minus one save

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        Doubt it, seeing that AP is a modifier now.

        • Severius_Tolluck

          Weird that they hinted in their talks that str mod coming back. now that being said, weapons with AP is an added value. Maybe as AP was in fantasy, where it added an additional minus. Which makes heavy weapons much more important and powerful. Which makes sense for them to take on armor vehicles perhaps. All speculation, but I am just going by the original hints.

          • AircoolUK

            I’m presuming the Strength Modifier is for Close Combat. Hitting someone with the heavy end of a Bolter (or more importantly, a Bolt Pistol and Knife for Marines) has a -1 AP value due to the Marines Strength of 4.

            However, by the same logic, Bolters (and therefore Bolt Pistols) should have the same -1 AP bonus.

            Perhaps the modifier kicks in at S5? My Carbine wielding Tau FW’s would love a decent AP modifier. I always though that their current AP value reflected their S5 punch,

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Yeah suppose you are correct. Makes sense. Lethality of weapons was greatly reduced in AoS, although, armor saves also greatly reduced for the average model too. Well, will have to see.

          • El Boyo del Reko

            I’m guessing chainswords will have AP -1.

    • AircoolUK

      Presumably (hopefully) they’re balanced in ways we haven’t seen. Might be something as simple as a reduction in points.

  • Justin Dicken

    So now a lascannon can potentially one-shot a MC?

    • SilentPony

      …couldn’t they already?

      EDIT: Oh, my bad. I misread and thought you meant vehicles. Brain fart!

      • Devourer

        nope. that was basically the difference between armor and creatures

    • SIA

      They did say that MCs were gonna get their wounds increased, but yes if a vehicle or MC has 6 wounds or less a lascannon now has a chance to one shot it.

    • Gentle_Ben

      Depends how many wounds the MC has. Roboute has 9 and he is the closest thing to an MC that we have seen

      • ZeeLobby

        And I’m hoping he’s like a beefy character more than an MC. Really hoping full on MCs get at least 12.

        • Gentle_Ben

          yup

        • Karru

          Looking at the Dreadnought wounds, It might be a safe bet that the average wound amount of monsters is around 8 as well.

          • AircoolUK

            I get the funny feeling that larger models are going to go down quicker than they do now so (cynical) you buy a few more to put in your army.

          • Karru

            I have mixed feelings about them going with this route. If they make monsters cheap, you might see more of them. That is nice as they are nice looking models. On the other hand, taking single Dreadnoughts or other Monsters isn’t going to be effective at all. A single hit from a Lascannon might be enough to make them completely useless. Granted, they could already do that, but this seems a bit too much.

          • Muninwing

            initial info seems to show that a Dread cannot be one-shotted by a lascannon anymore
            (having 8 wounds and a Las only doing d6)

            in fact, on average based on what little info we have so far, it would take 3 hits from a las to reliably destroy a Dreadnought. more if they get lucky with saves.

          • Karru

            Yes, but we have yet to see things like Autocannons, Plasma Guns, Grav Guns and Missile Launchers. Also the damage table is yet to be seen. The Damage table will be the key here. If a single Lascannon hit would be enough to reduce the movement and attack value as well as the To-hit stats, it will be hard to convince oneself to take them. That’s my only real issue with the damage tables. I’ve seen how “harsh” they can be in AoS. Even at a half way point, those things are pretty crippled to continue fighting or pose too much threat in board control.

          • Muninwing

            that’s an interesting thought… what exactly will be the use and usefulness of these partially-damaged units, and how survivable or even remotely effective will vehicles be once they start sustaining damage.

            currently, vehicles (barring a one-round jostling, or a destroyed weapon) retain full efficiency all the way until they explode. i’d love to see decay of effectiveness… though i’m hoping it’s not too drastic.

            it might be funny to see end-turn gambits involving careening all semi-effective vehicles into combats just to do what damage they can before they fall apart.

          • Simon Bates

            I don’t think the logic holds. I’m less likely to take big models if they’re too easy to kill.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Dev Squads are going to be potent. 4d6 damage is powerful.

  • SilentPony

    So basically what this is showing is they didn’t learn anything from Age of Sigmar and are more than happy to run their flagship game into the ground to make it easier for little kids who don’t even want to play the game to learn the game, which they won’t, while the older players with huge armies and years of experience are told to go sit and spin, thanks for buying all those models but we don’t care about you anymore.

    Classic games workshop.

    • Stealthbadger

      This is because they changed flamers to d6 hits? Looks like most people like these changes based on the comments.

      • ZeeLobby

        Comments here or elsewhere? Here it seems to be a pretty mixed bag.

        • Stealthbadger

          Yeah my bad I was talking Facebook and also comments generally on other changes.

          The funny thing is though seeing the rage that flamers are now uselsss, there seems to be equal amounts of people arguing they are OP. This community man, it’s fantastic.

          • ZeeLobby

            Eh, it’s like every other. I mean when WMH dropped there were wild claims as well. That said, I think this game is more accepted by the masses, and I hate to say it, but a fair chunk of the masses just don’t think.

    • Farseerer

      ” thanks for buying all those models but we don’t care about you anymore ”

      That’s a bit of a reach isn’t it?

      I mean they only changed a template to D6 hits.

      • SilentPony

        Well that coupled with all the other rules that have been leaked.
        Oh and the ‘all codexes are obsolete’ crap. While my local manager is still trying to sell me the new TS codex.
        Knowing in a few months it’ll be worthless.

        So yeah, ‘but we don’t care about you anymore’ seems like a good summary to me.

        • Farseerer

          – Properly fix 40k
          – Keep the current codices

          Pick one.

          If you think the managers at a local GW had the inside scoop months in advance then you are very poorly informed.

          Actually I’d say based on the tone of your entitled whinging that being poorly informed doesn’t stop you feeling like the victim of some great tragedy.

          • SilentPony

            You do know GW called all their managers to a company seminar and told them about 8th ed months ago, right?
            So…yeah, they DID know. Literally. Specifically.

            And properly fix 40k! Ask Fantasy players how GW ‘fixed’ it.

          • Ak318

            Actually no most managers even those in the UK don’t know abouut this stuff until they get the announcment as we had at my local store where the manager was the most shocked in the stre (and it was genuine can assure you) after one of the members showed him the 8th ed announcment. Shame he ws hoping for GH2 XD

          • SilentPony

            Oh, well my manager told me he knew Codexes were on the way out the door months ago.

          • Ak318

            From what I gather it depends on who the manager knows at head office rather than every manager gets told

          • Farseerer

            Are you saying 7th is fine how it is?

          • SilentPony

            I’m saying Age of Sigmar didn’t fix Fantasy.

          • Parthis

            Nor was it intended to.

          • Farseerer

            You keep beating those straw men buddy.

          • SilentPony

            And you keep misusing strawman as if it somehow makes your position more viable.

          • AircoolUK

            Been a WHFB player since 2nd Edition.

            They fixed it. And you know what, you can still play AoS set in the Old World, so even the reset fluff can be ignored if you like.

            And the Old World really did need blowing up, it’s been the same story since 1984 when the second edition was released. That’s 33 years. The 40K timeline can progress, but Fantasy had been static for a long time. The threat of the final incursion of Chaos is there in every edition.

            So yeah. GW did fix Fantasy. They made a more accessible game, that has a lot of tactical depth and massive scope for expansion.

            You can still play 40K 7th for as long as you want, in the same way you can play 3rd, or 4th or any other edition for as long as you want.

            Bottom line is, your Codex’s would become obsolete over time anyway, just as they do with every edition!

          • Muninwing

            “fix”

            “made into a fundamentally different game”

            two different things.

            you may like AoS, you may not. but you can’t compare the two games and claim that they have much in common past the models used.

          • Muninwing

            i’m fine with every codex being junk, if they fix actual points balance.

            if they just slap values on like they’ve done since 3rd, there’s ultimately no point to caring about balance anyway…

        • AircoolUK

          That argument just doesn’t wash if you take a few seconds to think it through to the logical conclusion.

          You realise that every Codex becomes obsolete after a while, and the ones that don’t become obsolete become so outdated that people are begging for them to become obsolete.

          • Muninwing

            yeah, i have a whole shelf in my office of old codexes. only at one point in time did i own every active codex and armybook.

            i’m still really not sold on the “warscroll” idea. seems like it’s just a repackaging, not an amazing fix like some people rave about. but if that’s how it is, that’s how i’ll play.

            changes have happened since i started, and some are good and some are not. really, only the switch from 6th to 7th (which was more of a tweak than a new edition) showed minimal disruption.

    • Walter Vining

      Ill buy all of your stuff for 100$ when you rage quit

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        He would rather torch his army! If he can’t have fun with it, then no one can!!!!

        • Walter Vining

          torching armies and models only helps raise value, either way I win.

    • AircoolUK

      I’ll put money on you being the first to post a Youtube video of your army in flames.

      As for learning anything from AoS, I’ll have to take the opposite point of view, I think they’ve learned quite a lot since its release.

      If you want your complexity, go back to Rogue Trader or WHFB 3rd Edition. They had complexity in spades, or buckets, or wheelie bins, or skips, or bathtubs, or (insert a long list of complex containers here).

      • Muninwing

        to be fair, the release was such an utter mess that they couldn’t *not* learn from it…

  • vyrago

    I’ve seen a lot of editions. The fanboys might complain but they’ll keep spending. GW could personally send a rep to their house who then rubs poo in their face and they would say “I’ve been asking for poo since 2nd”.

    • Farseerer

      What is the point you are trying to make?

      • vyrago

        everyone will rage now but then keep playing and then claim they love it.

        • Parthis

          OK.

        • Farseerer

          I dunno man, sure there are people that are unhappy right now but looking at different forums i’d say that the consensus is that these changes are for the better.

          • ZeeLobby

            I think people were just so fed up with 7th they’ll take anything at this point, regardless of whether it’s better, slightly better, or slightly worse, lol.

          • Farseerer

            Honestly, I would have kept the flamer templates and just gotten rid of the blast templates and scatter dice. (The mechanic is ok, it just takes too much time, especially for things like TFCs ).

            I can see why they didn’t keep them though. I’ve never really had issues with people in terms of arguments about how many models are covered but i’m sure they’ve happened many times.

            Otherwise, I think that everything else that has been a change for the better.

          • ZeeLobby

            Im a little disappointed. I mean as a player you do 2 main things in this game, roll dice and measure distances. Using templates was an exciting break from that. Aesthetically it was cool and tactically it opened doors. I think your experience was common to most. Of the thousand plus games I’ve played in my life I’ve only had a template argument maybe 3 times. It seems like a horrible thing on the internet but it’s the internet.

            Personally this change is a slightly worse one for me, but im so ready to get my armies back out and play with the new rules that I’ll get past it, haha.

          • Farseerer

            It seems like they have taken a lot of the bad things out of the game. They haven’t shown much in terms of new features yet so I have yet to get disappointed at much.

            Things that I won’t miss:

            -Vehicles being much easier to kill than walkers/ MCs
            -WKs, IKs etc. being just as effecitve when they hare 90% destroyed
            -2+ cover saves/ jink saves/ re rollable jink saves
            -D weapons
            -Mega Deathstars/ Allies abuse
            – It being very bloody hard in a tournament to do well if you don’t use 5 or six of the twenty something ish factions

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. Now take that list and compare it to the so far detailed changes and there’s no way they wouldnt all look like sunshine and kittens. Having not played GW games for a while and mostly playing other stuff and then coming into these rules, there’s definitely things I enjoy now in other games that GW are removing though. It’ll definitely be a much better edition.

          • Yes, but the people who a freaking out are doing so loudly. A lot of the people who like the game as it was are ready to wail about every change. It’s really just theatre. I could get addicted to these daily doses of hyperbolic geek rage, though. I might have to get some popcorn for tomorrow.

          • kloosterboer

            I like extra butter on mine, thanks. I’ll bring the Dr Pepper.

          • Muninwing

            yeah, some people are inordinately freaking out. but that was to be expected.

            after what GW did with WHF, they’ve sort of earned this level of skepticism and resistance. and i don’t just mean Aos, but every part of their rollout.

            this anxiety is just consequence.

      • The Rout

        I don’t know either but i agree with him

      • The Rout

        You make unsense sir. Love it.

    • Drpx

      Poo just hasn’t felt like poo for me since 5th.

  • Farseerer

    This kind of indirectly confirms that cover saves are gone from the game to be replaced by to hit modifiers. Otherwise I assume that the flamer would have ignore cover in it’s special rules.

    This is absolutely fantastic!

    The 7th cover save mechanic ( your armour is still just as tough in cover) and potential for abuse by abilities and psychic shenanigans were one of the least logical and most annoying parts of the game.

    • Matt Razincka

      I thought I saw cover was now +1 Armor, but I couldn’t source that, so I might be totally off.

      • Farseerer

        I haven’t seen that one now but it’s definitely plausible

    • Parthis

      Cover just adds +1 to your save, it has been confirmed.

    • Devourer

      I agree! Never understood why cover was a kind of armor in the rules

      • Muninwing

        it really should be a to-hit modifier, not armor…

  • NovaeVox

    Ork players should be exited about the changes to bolters and template weapons. Your slugga boys may actually survive enough SM shooting phases to actually hit something.

    • Parthis

      This may very well be the edition Orks get some real, meaningful table time.

      Charging units hit first? Yes please.
      Flamers D6? Sup Burna boys.
      I getz my T shirt saves? Waaaaagh.

      • NovaeVox

        T-shirt saves, lol! 😀

  • NovaeVox

    Hmm, Rapid Fire weapons have a number now. Does this mean they can potentially get more than 1-2 shots a turn?

    • Devourer

      I guess it is a merge with salvo weapons. The number maybe stands for the number of shots at full range and this doubles at half range?

      • Muninwing

        that’s how it used to be…

        back in 4th, you could shoot rapid-fire weapons and still charge. and they’ve dithered around with what exactly RF can do and cannot, and when or where it kicks in, since 3rd. the only constant has been that bolters are 24″ or 12″ for two shots.

        i’m not sad to see Salvo go. not really needed. Though i did enjoy the Standard of Devastation that turned bolters that didn’t move into 4-shot 24″ range ridiculousness due to salvo… rolling over a hundred bolter shots each round was nuts.

  • Gentle_Ben

    I’m most curious about weapons with multiple fire modes, missile launchers in particular.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    This is going to be a simple edition.

    So if an enemy unit (even if it is only 1 model) is in range, then it will get hit with all of the flamer attacks. KISS.

    • ZeeLobby

      If everything is as random as possible everyone wins!

      • In the flamer’s case the autohit negates some of the random. I am worried that this will show up a lot, though.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        It is no more random than a Flame template. You are just shifting the random from spacing and movement to a d6.

        • ZeeLobby

          I fail to see how those are even comparable. One is based on the decisions of you and your opponent. The other is based on a random dice roll. LoL. You can go with “the results will most likely be the same”, I’ll take that as a reason.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            You have no control on what your opponent does. He either prepares for your template, or he does not. From your perspective, it is random as to whether he plays the spacing game or not.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean that’s just not true. A good player will almost always space, and terrain or your own units (ie tank shock) can force your opponent to bunch up. What you’re​ basically saying is that everything your opponent does is random, so we might as well just roll dice to determine what they’ll do, regardless of it’s outcome. Basically that there’s no point in thinking ahead because he’s just as likely to move forward as backwards.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            When it comes to them spacing their models, it may as well be completely random because you have limited ways to interact with how he spaces. Tank shock is your only way (as assaulting prevents you from shooting his units stuck in melee, and after combat he will consolidate so he is spaced (unless he randomly rolls a 1)).

            I am not saying you cannot lure someone into a trap to flame them but that holds true for the new way Flamers work, so that point is moot.

            The new way is easier but also safer. You always get d6 hits, no matter if you are 8 inches or 1 inch away. With the template, sometimes you could only get 1 (say you were far away), sometimes you could catch an entire squad (your opponent did not space and your flamer is close to the enemy unit). The old method was riskier but had a higher potential pay off.

          • generalchaos34

            not to mention the fact that the movement phase has now been sped up by 9,000% when you aren’t trying to spread your guys out. The Guard Blob returns!

  • Andrew

    Can’t believe Bolters don’t even get Ap -1! A gaunt-heavy Nid army is looking more and more attractive.

  • Luca Lacchini

    The loss of templates still does not win me over.
    Flamers will function (albeit with some weird corner cases), but I still can’t figure out how my guardsmen HT rearline with mortars or even their trusty Demolisher Leman Russ(es) will work out in the battlefield.
    The only sore spot of the new edition so far, but it’s not going away. Yet.

    • Ak318

      When asked the question “Any word on how a battlecannon will work (or any blast weapon?)”
      The response they got from GW was “Not
      that we have announced. But look at how the flamer works with the
      multiple shots. Could be something like that? We will have to wait and
      see…” So make of that what you will. But having played with AoS artillery guard will be scary

      • Ak318

        Also on that point AoS has a mechanic that may come into play and GW on the facebook pave has been dancing around on whether or not it will occur Which is in both shooting and melee before rolling to hit you can also split attacks between targets in range. If you don’t declare before rolling all you shots will be going into 1 unit. Therefore if that is carried over all template weapons could hit multiple units (though the number of to hit rolls would not increase.). Also this could extend to all weapons if it follows AoS so will be interested to see how that will happen.

    • Farseerer

      My guess would be that blasts will be replaced by D6/D3/2D3/2+D6 hits etc. with barrage weapons ignoring armour save modifiers given by cover. Just a guess tho

  • Karru

    Damn. I’m a bit worried on those Flamers. A D6 hits is a tad to random for me, I hope they’ll give something more to them that would allow them to fulfil the role of Anti-horde better than something like a unit of Boltguns. It will boil down to their price though. If they cost more than 5 pts, I highly doubt we will see them played that much. 8″ of range and the average of 4 hits isn’t that great in my opinion.

    I’m also not so keen on the damage being so “unpredictable”, but it will serve its purpose. Again, it will fall to pricing to decide how good this things truly are. It’s also nice to see that Rending isn’t as powerful as I originally believed. Marines will still be breathing after a bolter volley.

    Overall, there are many things about this and the earlier reveal that I am very glad about. The fact that Super Heavies and Gargantuans are “gone” and that D-weapons have been removed and turned into normal weapons is great news. They are actually tackling many of the real problems there are in 7th and I am very happy about that. There is hope for this game yet.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah. GW taketh away randomneth, GW giveth back.

      • Karru

        Yeah, I really don’t like it that much. I’d much rather see them go with solid numbers on damage. Lascannon for example should do 3-4 automatically if it wounds, Plasma Gun could do 2 and so on. It just makes some weapons less appealing if they price them too high, because you are risking possible less damage for higher points.

        • Yep. There be some risk with all that reward.

      • NovaeVox

        GW, give me back my legions!

        Oh… Well thank you kindly.

  • AircoolUK

    I think the Flamer is D6 Hits vice D6 attacks.

    Perhaps that’s going to be what differentiates how wounds are carried over to other models, or just affect one model regardless of its Damage.

    Looks like (myself at least) is going to have to be careful with the terminology.

    A Flamer can cause up to six HITS, which can therefore remove up to six 1 WOUND MODELS (or 3 x 2 wound models? A Flamer being able to wipe out a 6 wound model sounds unlikely), whilst the Lascannon causes just one HIT but can cause up to 6 WOUNDS on multi wound models.

    I’ve confused myself already…

    • Koen Cambré

      If it’s similar to AoS… the damage output potential of both weapons are the same, regardless of what you hit.

      IF the AoS system is used, a lascannon can also nuke 6 infantry in one turn for your damage.

      • nurglitch

        I suspect it will not be the case. I think it will be 1D6 shots.

        • Ak318

          You were largly correct except for the 6 wounds with the lascannon bit.

          How it works in AoS is you have a number of attacks they hit > wound > save > apply damage stat for each failed save

          SO if you failed that 1 save from the lascanon you would then take D6 damage.

          • Karru

            Actually, looking at the rules, it seems that the way it goes is like this:

            1. Roll to-hit.
            2. Roll to-wound.
            3. Opponent Rolls to-save.
            4. If the save is failed for a particular weapon, the DAMAGE of the weapon(s) are assigned towards the UNIT.
            5. Remove Casualties.

            AoS pools all wounds the unit takes, including multiple wounds, then you start assigning them and removing people.

            For example, if a unit takes 12 wounds from normal attacks and then is hit by a weapon that deals D6 wounds and it manages to roll a 5, it takes a total of 17 wounds. These are taken at different times, but the unit would still suffer 5 wounds.

          • AircoolUK

            That’s the AoS way, it’s just that confusion arises over the intimation that the Lascannon isn’t an effective anti-infantry weapon despite the fact that it can wipe out up to six models (with a high Toughness) and has a -3 AP to boot.

            A devastator squad just could (if things stay the same) field 4 Lascannons and wipe out a squad of 10 Terminators with just 4 shots. Currently, you’d need a Plasma Cannon for that sort of thing and to be very lucky with your template deviation.

          • Karru

            “Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model.”

            To me, that sounds like they are doing them on a hit basis. When the Lascannon wound is assigned to a model, it suffers D6 wounds, not the unit.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Good catch!

          • nurglitch

            S and T already deviate from AoS, I suspect wounds and saves will as well.

          • AircoolUK

            Indeed, but the way the text is written, it’s inferred (but obviously not confirmed) that the Lascannon would only affect one model, otherwise it would still be a great anti-infantry weapon.

            As there’s no templates anymore, the only weapons that should cause multiple wounds that are carried over when one model is removed, as per AoS are weapons that used to use a template. A Frag Missile may cause multiple hits or have multiple shots (confusing as we don’t know whether these types of weapon are instant hit or not. It used to be the case where you had to roll to hit just to get the template where you wanted it). You can imagine the Frag Grenade causing damage to a lot of targets, but the damage output wouldn’t be the same for a single target.

          • Xodis

            Its been confirmed on GWs article that the Lascannon is 1d6 wounds on a single model.

          • generalchaos34

            that makes sense, thats why the flamer has D6 attacks as opposed to D6 damage, since the rule will always be to wound roll per a single model

      • Xodis

        No, the Lascannon is specifically 1d6 damage to a single target as per the GW website, so the flamer and lascannon have the same potential damage output against a single multiwound model, but the flamer reigns supreme against multi wound units regardless.

        • Koen Cambré

          Oh right, so it’s not the same system as AoS then. Not a bad system, since this actually keeps a bit more of the flavor of the weapons this way.

      • AircoolUK

        But it’s intimated that the Lascannon can only damage a single model and therefore the extra damage/wounds/hits/I don’t know anymore :'( wouldn’t be assigned to other models.

        Whereas the Flamer can cause multiple hits that can cause lots of infantry casualties, but would be less effective against multi wound models.

        What I infer from the text is that:

        Lascannon can cause a lot of damage to one model.

        The Flamer can cause minimal damage to lots of models.

        So perhaps the Lascannon damage won’t get carried over to other models in the unit, whilst the Flamer can’t one-shot multi wound models (for example, each flamer can only cause one wound to be removed from a 2 Wound Terminator). Then again, each hit from the Flamer needs to make a Damage Roll and avoid an Armour Save so perhaps a Flamer could kill a 6 Wound model if it was lucky with damage rolls and armour saves.

        That would mean that weapons intended to mow down infantry such as the Heavy Bolter and Assault Cannon would have more than one attacks and could cause Dx Damage.

        • SIA

          As someone else pointed out they specially say a lascannon only effects one model but flamers effect the unit. So one flammer can cause 6 wounds to a single model just like a lascannon the difference being the lascannon either only has one hit which then has a chance of doing d6 wounds while the flamer has d6 hits each with a chance of doing one wound. So on avg the flamer will do more wounds but the lascannon makes armor saves harder.

          • AircoolUK

            That makes the Flamer quite a devastating weapon as it could tear down high wound single targets compared to the current model.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Which is why it will see a lot of play.

  • nurglitch

    +2 is a bonus, 2+ is a threshold indicating two or more.

  • GreekSauce

    Saves will be on Hits.

    Flamers do D6 hits each hit does 1 wound.
    they roll a 4 and you save against those 4 auto hits.

    Lascannon shoots 1 shot, you save that shot no wounds
    you don’t save that shot and it does d6 wounds.

    Any other way is too powerful. Just like the 7th ed D table.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      You need to hit and wound and then the enemy saves.

      We just do not know how the wounding system works currently (otherwise why keep S and T?)

  • Tushan

    And here is how the salamanders died.

    Yeeeah, a flamer just hit 3 orks in that tightly packed blob of 30 boys. I present to you the single worst weapon in the entire game.

    Fun..

    • Ak318

      would argue that is still more orjks hit than wirth a bolter. Especially since they have sams s, ap and dmg

      • Tushan

        Lets see here, nowdays I take a risk by getting close to an ork mob, even tankshocking them closer together in orde for the two flamers to easely cover 16-ish orks.

        In 8:ed there is NONE risk-reward to EVER getting close to the same ork mob for what 4 orks to die from two flamers.

        The flamer rule is a bad joke at best and will effectively kill of all and any armies that rely on flamers for anti horde, the very thing they are supposed to be good at plus forcing you to risk getting close to a horde in the first place.

    • nurglitch

      Such a shame that mob might get to do something.

      • Tushan

        Yeah, such a shame that the mob can only wade forward, no brains because not even a bottleneck facing salamanders will do more then kill 2 of them.

        Shame that marines previously had to use tactics and take risks in order to get that 16 flamer double hits against a cheapass ork that slaughters you when they touch you.

        Now bolters from a distance is the only way to kill hordes. Fun game mechanic, really.

    • generalchaos34

      its not like they will probably have some special mechanic for Salamanders that will add damage or cause rerolls on their signature weapon! Not to mention the possibility of a command squad causing 24 wounds to a single model with flamers alone

  • nurglitch

    Remember folks, it’s time to count our chickens before they hatch!

  • Michael Garrett

    you should all just burn your armies in a youtube video, and make room for people that want to play a game

    • Drpx

      It’s not novel anymore.

  • Jimi Steele

    Better than I could have imagined! So happy we’re keeping weapon types.

  • Orthon234

    muh Land Raider.
    LASGUNSSSSSS!!!
    Guardsmen getting saves against muh BOLTER!!!
    REEEEE

    • Thomas

      Can we please stop with the “reee” thing? It’s a reference to that awful “autistic screeching” meme and it’s just vile.

  • vlad78

    Bolter AP0 is a really really good news. Hope small arms will stay there during the whole edition.

    • karloss01

      Yeah I was surprised by this, considering the Shadow War one has a save mod of -1.

  • Deacon Ix

    Feels very similar to 2nd

    I like

  • vash113

    I’m really not sure how I feel about the D6 damage on the Lascannon, I was hoping this edition would make vehicles more survivable and useful but it looks like on average it will still only take three or four lascannon shots and maybe just two to kill a Dreadnought, just like before, which does not make me feel very hopeful about the old chapter Ancients becoming viable again, quite the opposite in fact.

    • NNextremNN

      You still need luck to kill them with just a few shot. The more important part is the same will be true for monstrous creatures. Many were criticizing that walker exploded faster than MC died. And the type of some units did not make that much sense. I really like Tau and their battlesuits but come one those were not creatures.

    • Muninwing

      average roll on a d6 is a 3.5… dreads with 8 wounds means it is likely to need 3 unsaved hits to kill one… but roll badly and it could take up to 8.

      whereas in 7th, 3 unsaved glances was an automatic destroy (hull points), and with a lascannon’s 1/3 chance of getting a penetrating hit, and its +1 on the chart, the likelihood was that it would be over in 1-2 shots.

      but if vehicles have saves… then that will add more needed shots before they are destroyed.

  • Bijyu

    As a sisters of battle footslogger fan, I am very happy to see the removal of templates. No longer do I need to worry about my special weapons dieing first because they have to be in the front to avoid hitting other models. And I also don’t have to spend as much time spreading out my 20+ blob squads.

    • Reven

      That will be nice, and hopefully my mech sisters won’t be footslogging as soon as something looks at the Immolator.

      • Jon

        However, having your flamers do D6 hit is going to suck. On average that is 3 – 4 hits with a flamer. I don’t think I have ever had a flamer hit less than 4 models, usually sometimes up to 8 especially with seraphim. I think it would be better if they had a base number of starting hits with a d3 or d6 additional hits. The fact that they are sooo random now is crap.

  • piglette

    I’ll miss the flamer template, it always seemed like a cool thing. If it helps clean up the game I’m all for it though.

  • knightsanguis

    Hooray my Dark Eldar have saves again!

    • Djbz

      *At last

  • Darth Bumbles

    It seems odd that artillery will lose an area of effect ability as exemplified by the old templates.

    • generalchaos34

      if its like AoS it would be something along the lines of “causes D3 damage, but if the target has 5 or more models causes D6 damage, if the target has 10 or more models, causes 6 damage”, etc

  • SprinkKnoT

    I know lots of people are freaking out about Lasguns killing landraiders, but are we entirely sure that the SvT chart is changing? It could be very possible that S3 can’t hurt T7+, but there could be new ways to buff a weapon’s strength. So plain ol’ lasguns can’t kill a landraider unless they get an ammo buff or something.

    • generalchaos34

      they said a lasgun can kill a land raider on their live stream, but it would be VERY VERY unlikely. I believe they used the phrase “give that guardsman a field promotion!”

  • William Bennett

    why do bolt guns not have any ap? Have they collectively nerfed space marines AGAIN by reducing the ap of bolters?! it should be ap -1 at least. Wheres my AP 5?!

  • Simon

    Single hit damage from AoS spills over. I don’t see what in this profile alludes to it not necessarily spilling over. Please explain. Is the article required reading for that?

    • Reven

      “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.”

      The part of the article they are referencing.

      • Simon

        Awesome, thanks!

  • steelmage99

    Pity. They had the opportunity to increase granularity, but apparently didn’t.
    Too bad they decided to keep one of the big issues plaguing the system.

  • Juan Carlos González

    As an Ork player this is gonna be interesting to see, because this kind of randomness (random hits, random damage, etc) is the kind of stuff usually only us have to deal with.

    On second thought, I shudder to think what they will do to Orks so that they remain the “wacky random faction” :-S

  • Sure

    Let’s say you’ll need a 6 to wound a land raider with a lasgun…and let’ say you shoot 24 times – 12 hit and 2 wound…then the land raider has a 3+ or 2+ save…so probably no wounds, and land Raiders will have many wounds.

  • MechBattler

    That’s not as strange as I thought it would be. Looks kind of good actually. Wonder how they’ll handle weapons that used to be scattering blasts?

  • Marco Marantz

    well these profiles turned out exactly as i expected. They are thinking on my wave length at least and i complained bitterly to GW about D weapons in a letter to them. Im not taking credit but they seem to be addressing alot of the issues I raised, not all of which were universally agreed. As for questions raised, I expect damage to only affect units in range and wall of death could still be a thing; what is a failed charge anyway? It could very well be that a unit which fails a charge beats a hasty retreat upon the barrage of fire directed their way, but they still made it in range to get roasted by the flamer. Sounds like double toughness instant death could be gone. Flamers wont be OP. They have just been made viable.

  • James Mcclennan

    all these new rules just mean that orks are going to kick the teeth in of everyone again. #thinkofthechildren

  • Antoine Henry

    This is weird. Most people do not remember why 2nd Edition was changed. This is starting to be weird that they reproduce exactly the issue with the old edition and everyone say “how cool”. Well, 7th was starting to be a mess due to their way of managing their rules but this edition seems to be a removing all the flavor and putting an easy game for the people that can’t read and remember easy tablesand not lets say the randomness is back with a massive dice roll.

    • Nyyppä

      What they are doing is that they are replacing irreparable system (could be repaired but the rage quitting would get out of hand) with something that can still be adjusted. Blasts and such are not suitable in an environment in which people are very demanding of precision unless it helps the opposition or works against themselves in some other way.

      Templates and blasts are immersive. They are also a pain to use because any and all differences of opinion with them leads to arguments. The game is designed to be played between people who treat each other like a good mother treats her infant. The people who play the game are not like that.

      The flavor was never in the core rules.

  • Emprah

    I’ll miss the templates and initiative, however the new AP seems fine and I won’t miss the Destroyer weapons either.

    However I do hope the D value would be a fixed one, not a D6.

  • Kevin Glasgow

    Clearly the template for the flamer is gone, but does this confirm that all templates are gone?