40K: Live Q&A Round-Up

Did you miss the Live Q&A ? We got you covered.

Games Workshop just had a long chat via a Facebook Live Video. We know lots of folks might not of been able to watch due to the time or because you’re at work so we took a bunch of notes for you! Enjoy:

Q&A Summary

  • Was the info released at Adepticon about Movement Stats coming back, Chargers striking first and Morale Tests real?

Yes. Armor save modifiers are coming back, Movement stats are back, chargers will strike first (more on that later), and Morale tests are going to work in a similar manner as AoS.

  • Vehicles & Armor Values? 

No more Armor Value for Vehicles. All models will basically have the same stat line. That means Vehicles will have a Damage Table tailored to each vehicle. As the vehicles take damage they loose effectiveness – possibly lower BS, attacks, etc.

Everyone can hurt Everyone!

  • Will army play styles change?

They have tried to keep the play styles of armies similar and used this edition change to help reset and refocus those archetypes in a re-inforcing manner.

  • Is the Game still a D6 system?

Yes.

  • What’s the typical Game length (time wise)?

For a 1500 point game, shooting for a 90 minute game.

  • Narrative gaming support? How?

Yes – lots of support. 3 ways to play in mind – New warzones, campaigns, supplements will “have a home” in 8th.

  • Will every model currently out will have rules?

Yes! “All In” with model rules, including scenery, monsters, etc.

  • Command Points – how will we generate them?

They will help reflect the army selection & play style. In matched play, EVERY army will be battle-forged. 14 different Force Org charts for army composition. The way you build your army impacts how many you can end-up with.

  • Command Points – what do they do?

On a very high-level, they do things like give you re-rolls. There are “Generic” abilities and there will be army specific rules when the new codexes come out. One of the Generic abilities will allow you to interrupt charge phase of your opponent.

  • New Codexes?

Yes! Codexes are not going away, but they will come at a later date.

  • Army Construction – How will that work?

Here is an example of 3 Force Org Charts – there will be 14 at the start and they (GW) think that no matter what type of army you have you’ll be able to build one that matches a Force Org Chart.

  • Templates?

Templates are going away!

  • How often can we use Command Points?

One per phase. They will be a limited resource.

  • How did you test this edition?

GW reached out to several groups, notably they spoke with several of the big Tournament Organizers in the US for testing and feedback. That includes our buddies at Frontline Gaming, Adepticon, and NOVA. They said, “Most thoroughly we’ve ever tested.” And they have also taken in lots of community feedback though all the various forums, social media, etc.

  • How will we get the rules?

Day 1 New Rules! Five books on Day One – rules for everyone with Points, too! Digital and Physical. Everything you need to start playing will be out day one for all armies.

  • Expansions like Cities of Death?

Yes, will be part of the game. More ideas on the way way – more narrative supplements.

  • How about Broken Units (a la Riptide)?

Most balanced edition with the most robust testing. Hopefully their won’t be any “broken” units.

  • Match Play regular updates?

Yes! Much like the General’s Handbook, annual update for rules/points.

  • Fan Interaction?

Interactive Forum Coming as well social media feedback.

  • Free Rules? How will we get them?

Digital copies available and printed verisons at FLGS and Games Workshop Stores.

  • Warhammer 40k App for list building?

Working on it, not available for launch but it’s on the way!

  • Specific Tournament Rules?

No, but core rules have guidance for folks who want to run tournaments – “just suggestions.”

  • Unit Rebalancing?

Everything is now a legitimate choice. Even pyrovores. Everything can hurt everything else because of the new types of profiles.

  • How long was this game edition in development?

“A Long Time.”

  • What were your Top 3 goals for this edition?

1 – Make a game that works for all 3 ways to play

2 – Make sure the game holds-up to a competitive play

3 – Make it more accessible to everyone from new players, to fans of the lore, to hard core hobbyists.

They really wanted to take in as much feedback as possible and incorporate the feed back to what everyone was asking for.

  • Release Date?

“This Year.” More news on that later – just not today.

  • More cool stuff at Warhammer Fest?

Yes.

  • Will you cut down the number of models that are available and “streamline” the armies?

No – All models are sticking around!

  • How will points work?

Two different types of points!

1 – Powerlevel points – this is a basic, very broad brush gauge for a unit. It’s designed for Narrative play so you can have an idea of how powerful your army is and play in a more relaxed way.

2 – Matched Play Points – this is the very granular option. Weapons, options, etc. all have points costs – like the current system.

  • What about the factions? Noticed on the new 40k site that Astra Militarum was missing – what gives?

The website is more narrative focused – it’s an intro site for new players and a “getting started” place. Astra Militarum is still around and so are the Skitarii, they aren’t going anywhere.

  • Will there be new factions?

Yes. and possibly some new ones at launch…

  • What about Monstrous Creatures?

Yep, they are moving to the Damage Table like vehicles!

  • How will stats work? Str, Toughness, Wounds?

Again, everything can hurt everything! Stats are NOT capped at 10 anymore. Andy commented that when he played his first game, he really felt like the weapons did what they were supposed to – everything felt “right” when he played (in terms of how weapons worked).

  • What sized games are supported?

Both Match and Narrative games – 1000 points up to what every you want.

  • What’s the Highest Wound Count Model?

“The Knights are up there, but I don’t want to say and be wrong later…”

  • What about Allies?

Yes, allies are still around. But they work slightly different. Because the game is moving to the “Keyword” system the typical Death Star units/combos are not going to work. Your special abilities will only transfer to the units with the correct Keywords. This should cut down on the shenanigans.

The Force Org still supports allies but that will cut into command points…

  • Will Close-Combat be viable?

“Absolutely” – due to the change with chargers striking first and everyone being able to hurt everyone close combat should be a viable part of the game.

  • Is Medusa Gone? It wasn’t on the new map!

It’s not gone! The map was just really crowded.

  • What about Forge World Rules?

Those will be available in the same way.

  • What about the folks that just purchased books and codexes? Those are all invalidated!

Yes – if you still have your proof of purchase, you can contact GW Customer support for vouchers (time limit of 8 weeks).

 

Whew! That’s a lot of info…enjoy!

  • Luca Lacchini

    VERY GOOD NEWS.

    • SundaySilence

      Million Dollar Man!

    • ZeeLobby

      Haha, right! SOLID STUFF!

  • bfmusashi

    Holy crap at the vouchers news.

    • Xodis

      Seriously right? Who would have ever expected that to happen?

      • Shawn

        I was pretty happy about it, even if I don’t qualify. I made a general announcement on my local game store’s gaming page, just so the newer folks don’t get left out and feel gypped.

      • Thomas

        It’s weird, they said it’s something they’ve always done, but I’ve genuinely never heard of it. Not surprised though, customer service is the one area where I’ve literally never been able to fault GW.

        I’ve had cases where I got a whole other set because the first one had a production error or bits missing. It’s great.

        • Xodis

          Never ran into any of those issues (I even got lucky with failcast back in the day) but thats good to hear. Bottom line, announcing it like they did will go a long way towards garnering some goodwill from the player base which can be quite volatile at times.

          • lmn118

            They are very common, duplicate sprues is one but most of the time its down to broken parts.

        • Hazamelistan

          A long as you’re not independent store. Refunds for unsellable stuff took ages, you get stuff that you can’t really sell and they treat you like dumb sometimes.

  • Bryan Ruhe

    Really stoked to run a Knight and use the AoS-monstrous-creature-style damage table. Woo hoo!

    • Erber

      Finally I might be able to play my knight in casual games 😀

  • Michael Bradbury

    I can’t pick fault with anything they’ve said here! Pretty excited now. Intrigued by the ‘new factions’ tease.

  • georgelabour

    Can’t wait to see if my all infantry guard army will be able to wipe out my all knight army…with just las guns. =^.^=

    • Ronin

      Statistically, they won’t. You’ll probably chip a couple wounds down, but without dedicated anti-tank weapons the guardsmen will still be boned.

      • georgelabour

        Well fortunately my guardsmen are terrible at math but very good at pointing lasguns at things.

        • Donald Lindsey

          If you wanna see how this is gonna go, run a free people’s infantry army vs 4 or 5 star drakes in AoS. May not be as fun as it sounds.

    • Severius_Tolluck

      Considering how hard it is for them to take down necron wraiths now, I see it as tricky.

    • Xodis

      As long as your Infantry carried enough heavy weapons with them you should be fine….or so I hope lol

      • georgelabour

        Pshhh I already know how to kill things with autocannons and drive by meltaguns.

        Which is why I want to try something new, and quite in character for the guard.

    • Munn

      Oh you mean like how they wipe riptides off the table every game right? You did remember that lasguns can hurt things like riptides and dreadknights today, but are never considered to be an effective way to do so right? Because otherwise it would be ridiculous hyperbole.

      • georgelabour

        And what would the 40k fandom be without ridiculous hyperbole to keep the grudemonkies awake at night?

        Also I never said lasguns couldn’t kill thingsin the current ruleset…as a 20 year newb to the game I am well aware of what 150 lasguns can do.

        Aside from roll lots of 1s when all you need to do is kill one or two more gretchin…

  • Baldrick

    Sounds good/interesting. Good to hear that Monstrous Creatures will be brought inline, and will be susceptable to lasgun fire….nice. Little concerned about ‘no templates’….but lets see how this works out……

    • Luca Lacchini

      The farewell to templates is pretty much the only thing that bothers me so far.
      We’ll see, keeping a positive attitude.

    • Tim Finton

      My flamers! my precious flamers! I will miss ye

      • ArynCrinn

        They’ll probably just automatically hit D3 or a set number of models within a short range…

        • Keith Wilson

          d3 will suck

        • Heinz Fiction

          In that case i can put my minis on movement-trays and save a lot of time during the movement phase…

    • Xodis

      The rules for “Template” weapons will be pretty solid if anything like AoS.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Called a lot of this, sweet.

    Very happy that matched play has granular point costs. It is hard building an AoS army that hits the points cap due to the requirement of buying models in groups.

  • Sparti67

    But will they have stats for Rick Preistly’s deodorant bottle grav tank?

    • Sparti67
      • Xodis

        I would hope so! lol

      • Farseerer

        Haha, I remember that deodorant bottle. What was the book? Chapter Approved?

        • SWISSchris

          The internet tells me it was White Dwarf #95

          • Strategery.

            chapter approved was a white dwarf rules compendium with some extra stuff. pretty sure it was in the first one.

        • Rogue Trader too if I’m not mistaken

    • petrow84

      “more on that on release day – it stinks!

    • AdeptusAstartes

      Haha, I built one of those using guns from zoids and Action Force – it was rubbish!

  • Arthfael

    If this is true, then this is a game I can play. I will miss the templates.

    Also, I hope they have a good way to make Eldar viable in close combat if chargers strike first. And before anyone screams “ELDAR”, I’m asking for balanced Eldar, not broken Eldar.

    • OldHat

      I definitely won’t miss templates or the arguments that went with them!

      • Arthfael

        I hated the argument, but loved the process itself.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          Its funny, but in 30 years I can honestly say I never saw an argument over template hits.

  • Raven Jax

    I remain cautiously optimistic and excited to see what happens next.

    Thanks for the write up BOLS as I did indeed miss the broadcast today.

  • OldHat
    • ZeeLobby

      Man, haven’t seen you in a while! You excited?

      • OldHat

        Oh yea! Pumped!

        • ZeeLobby

          I really wish plastic sisters were the force heralding 8th edition and not larger space marines though :/

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Safer is better for GW

          • OldHat

            We don’t really know what is coming though. This looks like a major shakeup.

          • ZeeLobby

            True. I just assume that the accidental image upload that they took down of bigger space marines is an indicator, lol. Plastic sisters will be here one day though… maybe… lol.

  • Sorien

    The big question is psychic phase. That’s one of the biggest unbalanced parts of the game atm.

    • Severius_Tolluck

      Might just be dumbed down to the AoS magic system which is pretty nice and simple. I hope anyways.

      • lmn118

        Hope so, hate the 40k psy system AoS magic is much more to my liking.

      • Keith Wilson

        hope they dont take it that far … somewhere in between

  • SundaySilence

    It’s all sounding very good and positive. I MIGHT dust my Orks off.

  • Camisa

    just dont like the idea of a lasgun bringing a landraider down in 20 hits….. sounds stupid…..

    • Koonitz

      Let’s hope your dice aren’t that much on-fire, then, ’cause I’m fairly certain it’ll require a heck of a lot more than 20 shots to take out a Land Raider. If you look at the stats for a larger monstrous creature in AoS, you’re looking at 12-16 wounds, often with a 3+/4+ save.

      A standard lasgun will likely be a 4+ hit, 4/5+ wound and no save modifier. Assuming 4+ to wound, and the Land Raider has a 3+ save (2+ is exceptionally rare in AoS), 20 shots (I know you said hits, but I’ll assume you meant shots) will become 10 hits, 5 wounds, 1-2 failed saves. If you did actually mean hits, instead of shots, then double to 2-4 wounds.

      The Land Raider will likely have 16, or more, wounds, so you’ve barely scratched it. Haven’t even done enough damage to reduce it to the next damage category on its chart (usually requires 3 wounds for that).

      • Stealthbadger

        Plus whilst your directing volume fire at the big beastie your not hosing the supporting hoards units…

      • mgdavey

        Look, I basically like the idea of “anything can kill anything” but I can see the other guy’s point too. First, he did say “hits” so let’s just start there. Let’s assume the worst case and he does 4 wounds with 20 hits in one turn of shooting. Well it ain’t dead, but you’ve likely cut a couple of inches off it’s movement and probably taken off a couple of attacks as well. Combine that with some real AT weapon damage, or do it twice, or have one well above average round, and well you might have cut that vehicle’s effectiveness in half. I think mass low-cost shooting could wind up being a thing, and there will be many salty tears shed over the details of some of those damage tables.

        • Xodis

          Like Stealthbadger said below “whilst your directing volume fire at the big beastie your not hosing the supporting horde units…”

          Seems like a good balance there. A single vehicle not dominating the table for 4+ turns, but it lasting long enough to get the job done even if its useless afterwards….then you have to deal with the creamy filling on the inside.

          • mgdavey

            First, a Land Raider doesn’t dominate the table. Second, saying that a unit should not be stopped by small arms is not the same as saying it’s indestructible. Finally, as I said, don’t ignore that damage table. Putting eight or so wounds on something like that will have a game changing effect in a way 40k hasn’t seen yet.

          • Xodis

            Land Raiders use to dominate the Table as recently as 5e, and they are still a force to be reckoned with just on a smaller scale currently. A LR moving at 8 inches instead of 12 or hitting on 4+ instead of 3+ isn’t that game changing.

          • mgdavey

            Mastodons used to dominate North America back 10,000 years ago, but I have a hard time understanding what that has to do with anything. I wish you would make up your mind however: is it a good change that lasguns can hurt tanks, or can lasguns not really hurt tanks so there’s really no change? You seem to be saying both.

          • Xodis

            10K years vs 2 editions…..yep completely relevant comparison. As to why its relevant, nobody wants vehicles to be such a dominant force (again) that it imbalances the game (again).

            I’m going with option C “Its good that lasguns stand a chance, but its not realistic that they alone will handle a LR.”

          • mgdavey

            As you say armored vehicles have not been game-breaking for 2+ editions, so pretending that they are a problem that needs to be fixed now, doesn’t make any sense. So if the next edition strengthens things like lasguns in such a way that they can really hurt AV’s, I think people make a good point if they question it. Also, nobody said lasguns “alone can handle a LR”. Whatever handle means. Based on AoS rules, and the example given above they can certainly damage them significantly.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            I would assume vehicles would have a 2+ save and anti armour weps would have a significant rend.

          • Xodis

            Not 2+, just 2. And I said a LR was dominating, vehicles still dominate currently and did so in 6e as well.

            Handle: manage (a situation or problem) {from the dictionary.}

            And as Koontz showed mathmatically, no they really can’t damage them significantly. You get around 2-4 wounds on a LR in a best case scenario using only Lasguns, and assuming a minimum of 15HPs on a LR we are talking 4+ turns to bring them down.

          • mgdavey

            “vehicles still dominate currently and did so in 6e as well.”

            Umm, no.

          • Xodis

            Your right, there was no way Chaos ruled the skies with flying death machines……
            Eldar Wave Serpents didn’t change the bar for Troop Transports….
            Imperial Knights, Riptides, WraithKnights, etc… Sure those are “Monsterous Creatures”….but they are really vehicles.

          • Munn

            Again, right now a landraider can be killed by rolling over a BUSH.

          • Ryan Miller

            Pepper an Abrams with enough ak fire and you can hit something vital…

          • Xodis

            Very true, but its still not “realistic” to some people.

          • Hendrik Booraem VI

            Bullcrap. You can’t knock out anything “vital” with small arms fire on an Abrams. You can maybe damage some optics, or antenna, or maybe one of the machineguns, but you can’t “hit something vital” in any way, shape, or form. Not with 7.62×39, not even with 7.62×39 AP

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            I don’t think 40k is meant to simulate modern warfare, its more similar to the 1st world war in terms of small arms vs tanks.

          • NIck Cathers

            http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6a2f38c5e7c958c420c41b295028bb15eeb112800dcb46b3325e745c09edd405.png

            It can in a set of extremely rare circumstances involving misuse of the vehicle, and considering you aren’t going to do more than knock an odd wound off, with extreme luck and volume of fire… I don’t see the realism argument.
            Core fantasy I could see, the idea of a tank rushing forward to helpless guardsmen is very fluff.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            that’s interesting. I can def see ork tanks blowing up for these reasons.

            STRAP THE BOMBS TO THE FRONT LADZ. CLOSER TO THE ENEMY. RIGHT SMART.

          • Aura1

            Panzer tanks had tracks and connectors stripped by 50 cal fire. Sure it might not pierce the thickest armour, but if your tracks deplate and your tank turns over into a ditch whilst the motor units catch fire in a stinking death oven… seems closer to 40K warfare.

          • Ryan Miller

            Itt… (it takes time) enough of anything will destroy eveything.

        • No matter what they do, there will be a vocal group of people who will shed salty tears. I have an awful lot of armor on my shelf and I’m not freaking out. We have no idea how this is going to play out yet.

          • Ronin

            Not to mention they’re going with more frequent stat updates so if you feel like your land raider is still getting chewed, they’re going to bring the number of hit points up.

          • Koonitz

            Remember, they admitted to doing heavy beta testing with at least three of the most well known US tournament teams, Frontline Gaming (ITC), Adepticon and NOVA. If they trust that they’ve created a balanced rule-set that still makes Land Raiders viable, even despite the fact that the humble lasgun and autogun can now destroy them, I’m going to trust them, too.

      • Keith Wilson

        im thinking a LR will be like Toughness 10 or 11 …. since things can go higher than 10 now. So the humble lasgun might need a roll of a 6, then another 5 or 6 to cause a wound?

        • shaefer

          Yeah agreed, with toughness no longer maxing at 10 it’s possible light arms like a lasgun could end up needing to roll to hit, then rolling a 6 then a 5/6 after that just to score a wound. Which would be unlikely to happen but would still mean gw’s statement of “everything can wound everything” would be accurate as it would account for the movie one in a million shots that damage the big beasty.

    • That does sound stupid, but that’s not what they said.

    • Koonitz

      Also, small arms fire has traditionally been very effective at dealing with tanks. Mostly, an entire squad’s firing small arms fire can severely rattle a tank crew, because that’s a lot of noise, often very close to exposed viewports. This is usually done to keep the crew distracted while an anti-tank weapon lines a shot up.

      However, a couple lucky shots, say pegging a track join, or an exposed weapons cable, and that vehicle is suddenly going to begin losing functionality. Edit: Or a commander foolish enough to poke his head outside the cupola hatch.

      • Ronin

        Not to mention, the rules will represent tanks getting their armor blown off and having parts/drivers becoming more exposed.

        • Koonitz

          There’s always a means to explain it in the narrative, if you have the imagination to do so.

        • thereturnofsuppuppers

          Also ‘small’ arms fire in 40k is still pretty brutal. Lazers, grenade rounds and all sorts of alien weirdness.

          Not to mention infantry essentially wearing tank armour.

    • Munn

      Dude, get over yourself. Land raiders can die to Bushes and Fenceposts NOW.

      • Koonitz

        *snicker* … *looks at his Land Raider and his lack of dozer blade options* … It’s so true….

      • silashand

        Yep.

        “Gee, it’s immobilized. Guess it’s useless for the rest of the game.” Can’t tell you how many times that has happened over the years. I will absolutely *not* be sad to see the old vehicle rules go.

  • Zakading

    All of that sounds pretty good right now. I’m just very worried for elite units that are supposed to only be killable by very heavy weaponry. Even if the chance for lasguns or Gretchin killing a Land Raider is terribly low, it shouldn’t even be possible, period.

    • Ronin

      “A lucky shot hits the driver that was previously exposed by a lascannon to the front armor!”

      It makes sense if you’re considering battle damage. Lasguns won’t be so much to kill it, but it can certainly finish off the exposed drivers and engines that have had its armor blown away.

    • A Land Raider isn’t an Elite Unit. It’s a transport. I won’t be a Lasgun shot that takes it down, but hundreds of them. No this isn’t terribly realistic, but it’s a game. There is no “your tank broke down on the way to the battle” table, which, I assure you, is very realistic. That kind of thing wouldn’t be fun. Let’s wait and see how it works before we get upset.

    • Munn

      I’m going to repeat this to every person who brings up the stupid land raider thing,in 40k RIGHT NOW you can lose a land raider to a BUSH. And those elite units your talking about? Yeah they’re currently less survivable than cultists point for point.

  • Xodis

    Wow, so many of the things I thought of are here I need to check my paystub again lol.
    On a serious note this looks like the direction I was hoping GW would move to and it sounds like they are pulling all the stops to ensure this is a success. Can’t wait for my CSM to destroy the galaxy!

    • Ronin

      The Emperor protects by plot armor!

      • Xodis

        NO!!!!! Not plot armor!!!! I hate 1+ rerollable saves

    • Shawn

      While I am glad that you are excited for the new edition, I simply can’t let your CSM destroy the galaxy. Nope, nope, nope. The Iron Hands Clan Raukaan, Forge World Agreva’s Skitarii Maniple, and the Deathwatch will make you all pay! 😉

      • Xodis

        The Black Legion have already one, your corpse Emperor will soon fade and darkness will inherent the galaxy!

        • Shawn

          Not so long as the Omnissiah lives will you ever reach Terra!

  • tau4eva

    How about Broken Units (a la Riptide)?
    Most balanced edition with the most robust testing. Hopefully their won’t be any “broken” units.

    People still complaining about riptides need to chill

    • Ronin

      I’m glad they mentioned something about Death stars.

    • Farseerer

      Haha I was thinking the same. The questions on the article seem paraphrased. Maybe they mean Riptide wings

      • tau4eva

        that makes more sense

  • Sleeplessknight

    So if the vouchers for previously bought codexes are good for 8 weeks then it probably reasons to stand that the new edition will be out within that time period.

    • Xodis

      I thought it meant 8 weeks back was as far as they would consider giving vouchers.

  • AnomanderRake

    You know the AoS enthusiasts who whine about 40k having too many tables?

    You’ve just badgered GW into replacing one vehicle damage table with 100+ different tables.

    Good job.

    Thanks.

    Appreciate it.

    • Xodis

      Youre welcome 😀

      • ZeeLobby

        XD

    • Farseerer

      I’m sure you would be on here whining about oversimplification had they given a generic damage table for all MCs and vehicles instead seen as they now share a common statline.

      Having all the rules for a unit on the same page including individual damage tables is actually pretty streamlined and very fluffy.

      • mgdavey

        Why is it “fluffy”?

        • Xodis

          Fluffy by keeping them unique from one another and not copy paste so all tanks and MCs are the same just with a different model.

        • Farseerer

          It’s fluffy that all large monsters/vehicles lose effectiveness when wounded.

          It adds interest that each big unit will have a unique way of losing effectiveness more or less built into their statline. Fluff wise, a MC is going to lose power in a different way to a Rhino when it gets damaged so a generic table would be bad.

          • Mr.Gold

            but you could have had the keywords “monster” & “Vehicle”, monsters loose power in one way and vehicles in another…

      • AnomanderRake

        I’m sorry, back up a step. Where in my post complaining about the “charts are bad” lobby insisting we replace one chart with 200+ does it suggest I’d complain if we kept the one chart? I like the one chart. I can learn the one chart quickly and then I don’t have to look up any rules or care how difficult they are to look up when I’m playing the game because I KNOW THE CHART.

        (Whenever I have this argument with anybody the AoS player always has an incredulous reaction to the fact that I have the vehicle damage table and the hit/wound charts in 40k memorized. Not sure if I’m a freak of nature or not, but with only my own brain to filter my experience of the world through making it easier to look rules up at the expense of making them harder to learn seems to make things harder/more complicated, not easier/more streamlined.)

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      Did people whine about the amount of tables? I thought it was their implementation and accessibility problems.

    • Munn

      aww, it’s cute how far you’re reaching.

  • Farseerer

    This is just fantastic. Cannot wait until I can get my teeth into the new edition. Thanks GW. Sorry wallet

  • Joseph Limitone

    Where is Deliverance ?

  • stinkoman

    Vouchers!?

  • HolyDarkness767

    A lot of those things sound cool but there is one thing that really confuses me… They say “everything will be able to harm everything” and at the same time they say “the weapons feel like they do what they are supposed to do”. I don’t see how a lasgun can feel “right” when you suddenly can harm a god damn TANK with it.

    • Maitre Lord Ironfist

      in the old LoD Tabletop you hat a chart that was Defense vs Strenght – So 3 vs 4 was a 6 to wound (as i remember adhoc) if you wnated too wound something thougher you had to roll a 6 and another 4 – 6. I believe this might come. Like a Lasgun will need a 6/6 too do dmg. Wich would be the equivalent of hitting some Joints on the Tracks or something like that, or a vent or whatever.

      • HolyDarkness767

        That would make sense indeed, thanks for this explanation.

    • Farseerer

      I’m sure it will take a gargantuan amount of Lasgun shots on average to take down a Land Raider. Like, in the hundreds.

      If you want to go ahead and do that instead of shooting at the infantry that are supporting it then go ahead and be a tactically woeful 40k player.

      How about you save your breath getting worked up about a hypothetical situation that will realistically never happen and wait for the rules and stats to come out.

      • HolyDarkness767

        I wasn’t really getting worked up about it, I just found it a little bit confusing.^^

        • mgdavey

          Everybody who doesn’t drink every last drop of the Kool Aid is by definition an irrational hater.

          • Farseerer

            Yeah, I mean I guess I did call him irrational and a hater. Thanks for calling out such a toxic GW fanboy.

          • mgdavey

            Look how about you save your breath instead of getting so worked up about something I didn’t even say to you.

        • Farseerer

          keeping it pretty basic, If they give a LR a 2+ save and make lasguns hit on 4+/wound on 5+ then 100 shots would cause on average 3 wounds. Looking at AOS for comparison I’d say a LR will have about 20 wounds. There are other ways to make it work but I would imagine it would be close enough to that.

          • HolyDarkness767

            Sounds reasonable. Even if it was entertaining to have the chance to blow a Landraider up with a lucky lascannon hit. But maybe there will be a mechanic for heavy anti-tank weaponry to do such massive damage with one shot…

          • Xodis

            Weapons (using AoS for refernce) can cause multiple wounds, so I wouldnt put it past a Lascannon doing more than a single wound.

          • HolyDarkness767

            Yes, but will it be able to cause enough wounds to, lets say, blow up a Leman Russ with one lucky hit? I sure do hope so!

          • Xodis

            Maybe not, but it might hit hard enough to knock out that scary @$$ canon lol

          • I doubt it would remove a Russ entirely, but it could make them largely ineffective. It will be interesting to see how it all gets handled.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            A Lasgun could easily deal d3 mortal wounds.

          • Xodis

            Lasgun? lol

            Im hoping the Lascannon is at least 4 wounds.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I meant Lascannon, lol!

          • Xodis

            I figured hehe.

            I hope they shy away from the d# damage types though. I would really hate to get that Lascannon shot or meltagun shot off just to have it be as effective as a lasgun.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            They could make them mortal wounds, so only Invul saves could be taken.

          • Xodis

            Thats a possibility, would make up for a lower amount of damage and rend like you mentioned in an other comment.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            Damage happens after Saves, so against single wound models, it won’t matter as much, as the shot would likely be wasted.

          • Farseerer

            Looking at how they deal with in in AoS, stronger attacks will both reduce the armour saves (rend) and will do more that one wound per hit. I’d say one-shotting a LR will be pretty unlikely now unless you’re into Apoc stuff.

          • HolyDarkness767

            I think you’re right… But I still hope that lascannons and similar weapons will be able to oneshot smaller vehicles like Predators or at least Rhinos.

          • Farseerer

            That’s interesting point actually.

            I would Imagine that it will be more like 4 lascannon shots will have the same chance of blowing up a Predator on average as before with all of them contributing wounds but a single hero might not be able anymore unless it’s already damaged.

            Maybe Meltas at point blank range will have double wounds or something so you have the chance of one shotting.

          • HolyDarkness767

            Yes, I think that’s most likely how it’s gonna work.

            Another possibility would be to give lascannons about 4 damage and another +D6 against everything with the keyword “Vehicle”

          • Farseerer

            Yeah, I’d say you’r pretty close to the mark. The keywords will be really important in 8th methinks.

          • Xodis

            Im hoping…

            Krak grenade 3 wounds -3 rend
            Lascannon 36 inch range 4 wounds -4 rend
            Melta Gun 12 inch range 5 wounds -5 rend
            Multi Melta 24 inch range 5 wounds -5 rend
            Melta Keyword rule does double wounds when at half distance

          • Munn

            that is waaaaaay too many wounds with waaaaay to much rend

          • Xodis

            Its anti-Tank though, it kind of has to high wounds and high rend otherwise you are looking at 3+ rounds to take out a vehicle even with focused fire.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            No way any of that is realistic.

            I doubt they will go above a -2 rend. Maybe a -3 at most.

            Also, when you get above 3 damage, they are probably going to go to d6 damage

          • Xodis

            But these are anti-tank weapons, they kind of have to be.

          • Keith Wilson

            that could easily happen …. terminator armor will probably save like in SW:A … like 2nd ed. 3+ on 2d6 …. bet a lascannon is -6 or better

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            Mortal wounding at half range, I bet.

          • Koonitz

            The problem with everyone’s wish that anti-tank weapons can one-shot vehicles is that we’re falling STRAIGHT back into the same faults of 7th ed that people complained about.

            Why can every vehicle (short of super-heavies) be one-shot by most common anti-tank weapons, but a monstrous creature can not only take a LasCannon to the face, but likely shrug off multiple LasCannon hits and easily keep walking.

            The reason vehicles were largely shrugged off was because they could be one-shot, or horribly crippled by a single good shot. Monstrous creatures could not.

            You’re trying to take the new system straight back into the problem ruts of the old.

            If vehicles can be one-shot in the new system and monsters can’t by the exact same weapons, then the new system has failed vehicles, and I really don’t want to see that.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            1-3 out of 8-20ish is hardly what I’d consider a 1-shot, especially as there won’t be a random table that when I roll, 1 in 6 results in the Vehicle Dying, and for other weapons, that same result causes an explosion that potentially removes a bunch of my models from the board.

        • Keith Wilson

          guys im sure the shooting phase will be a copy paste of SW:A … aka second ed/necromunda. Lascannon will be str9 and d6 wounds or somthing like that. For the sake of this example the question will be what is the T of a Land raider (maybe 10 or 11) and what is its armor save … maybe with a weaker armor save on the rear or side for some vehicles

    • Djbz

      Aiming at the weapons/vision slits etc?
      Surely they could damage those….

    • Koonitz

      They’re called Lucky Glancing Hits. A rule the old Chapter Approved Armoured Company army had which deals with a problem that is actually very prevalent in the current edition. When you face an army that 75% of your weapons are utterly useless against.

      For instance, Imperial Knight armies.

      Now you can at least go for that desperate attempt to do some damage to that army with your lasguns/bolters in support of the small number of anti-tank weapons you did bring.

      And if you only look at the numbers, you might have problems, but if you use your imagination and look at the narrative side, you can always find a narrative reason for this to happen.

      For example, look at the Baal Predator and the Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer sponsons. I will point out exactly how EXPOSED the ammo containers, fuel drums and feeds are on those sponsons. Do you not think a well placed lasgun shot can do some serious damage there?

      What about if a few anti-tank rounds have hammered the hull of this vehicle, stripping armour off, exposing more vulnerable internal mechanics? Once again, a well-placed lasgun shot can do some serious damage.

      There’s always a way to explain these things in the narrative. Just use your imagination.

    • Munn

      YOU CAN KILL A LAND RAIDER IN THE GAME RIGHT NOW WITH A BUSH. PLEASE STOP THIS STUPID ARGUMENT.

  • Jacob Fraser

    I’m sorry but I don’t like the idea of “everything can hurt everything”. I don’t want my land raider to go down to DE poison shots. Unless there’s something I’m missing?

    • Xodis

      Vehicles will probably have saves and a large number of wounds, so while its possible Im assuming about 4+ turns to actually make it work since I dont think Poison weapons usually have a high Rend.

      • Farseerer

        I actually wonder how they will handle the poison mechanic now in 8th seen as everything sort of has it now.

        • Xodis

          No rending, low roll to wound, maybe a high roll to hit?
          Hopefully there is a Poison Keyword that says (does not work if the target has the vehicle keyword)

          • Farseerer

            Yeah, that’s probably how they’ll handle it. The poison in 7th always seemed a bit off to me anyway. Wounds a Wraithlord/Magnus on 4+ but can’t hurt an Ork buggy.

    • Djbz

      Well, the Keyword system will likely make Vehicles immune to poison and force them to use their strength value. (Which will almost certainly remain as a joke for DE splinter weapons) and thus will be needing 6’s (or higher) to “wound” and then will have to get past their save.
      + There will be a LOT of wounds to chip off.
      So it may work to finish off a battered vehicle, but will hopefully remain a bad choice to try.

      • Jacob Fraser

        Okay.
        It sounds like the system they use in AoS right? I’m not familiar with it at all but thanks for giving some closer with that haha
        I’d really like them to show the data sheet for a knight, I want to see how many wounds it has

    • Munn

      Yeah your missimg the incredible number of land raiders that have exploded into bits from rolling over bushes, or fence posts, or just like a little hill. The land raider thing is the ‘let’s see his birth certificate!’ of 40k.

      • Thomas

        Literally never happened to me in all my years of playing. Not once.

        • Pascalnz

          after the second time, never saw a land raider without something to stop it on the table again

  • Hendrik Booraem VI

    I haz a question: If a blob squad of 50 guardsmen within 12″ of a Land Raider uses FRFSRF and pumps out 150 shots, they’ll (on average) hit 75 times, and if every weapon in the game can wound every model, cause (if it’s still a 6 to wound) 12 wounds. Even with a 2+ save, the Land Raider is going to have its efficacy reduced, and in return be able to kill, what, 6-8 models?

    How does this Age of Sigmar ruleset not make the horde armies massively massively overpowered now? How does that mechanic work in AoS?

    • Kyle

      First we don’t know how the new wounding mechanic works. Second you could, you know, not plow that Land Raider into 50 guardsmen and instead use the an appropriate anti-blob unit. It isn’t like Spess Marines lack for firepower.

    • Xodis

      Im totally fine with that scenario.
      First: It doesnt even take half of the wounds I am assuming a LR will have (15-20 probably)
      Second all that shooting barely scratched the paint and maybe slowed it down a couple inches, but I still have the entire rest of my army without even a singe.

    • Farseerer

      Hordes in AoS as it is currently are pretty powerful for this very reason. I hope that GW have put a lot of time in thinking about making vehicles worthwhile but not OP.

    • Chuck

      FRFSRF was invented to make lasguns more viable. If lasguns can hurt Land Raiders, I would expect there won’t be FRFSRF anymore. It would be unnecessary.

      Plus, if they’re trying to make the game play faster, the first they I hoped they’d do is get rid of “OMG ROLL ALL THE DICE” stuff like FRFSRF. 😀

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Who is to say IG Orders will survive?

      Who is to say lasguns can shoot twice?

      20 Guardsman could easily be represented by 20 shots, 5 to hit, 5 to wound, with no rend. A Land Raider could easily have a 2+ save. In which, good luck killing a monster with 14 wounds when you only have a 26% chance of wounding it once and a mere 5% chance of wounding it twice. 69% of the time, you won’t wound it at all.

      We also do not know how wounding will work.

      Point is, wait and see before you start guessing. 🙂

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      In this scenario how are you determining the damage potential of the land raider?

  • Christie Bryden

    yay now I can use those thousand son termanators… ok I was going to use them anyway cause they look awesome but now even more!

  • Austin Solomon

    Getting rid of templates is a great idea. It causes most of the arguments when I play.

  • Crablezworth

    “everything can hurt everything” not a great start

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      if you have a 10 shots that require a 5 to hit and a 5 to wound and what you are shooting has a 2+ save, then you only have a 16% chance of dealing 1 damage.

      Everything can wound everything, doesn’t mean it will be effective.

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      I want an accurate and realistic simulation of ground warfare.
      Now… where are my space werewolf vikings.

      • Thomas

        Nice reductio ad absurdum argument.

        • thereturnofsuppuppers

          sometimes the absurdity of an argument is worth highlighting.

          • Thomas

            Not what reductio ad absurdum means, but nice attempt.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            whoosh.

        • Xodis

          It would only be reductio ad absurdum if Space Werewolf Vikings were a wild exaggeration and not one of the most common armies in the game.

          Nice Fallacy fallacy though.

          • Thomas

            Again, not really getting what the term means or what I’m saying. I’ll spell it out: Reductio ad absurdum is when you take your opponent’s argument and reduce it to its most ludicrous conclusions, to the extent that the original meaning or any sense of nuance is lost or distorted.

            The OP was unhappy at the idea of basic guns destroying tanks. A reply assumed that this was because OP felt this was unrealistic. He then exaggerated this (inferred, not confirmed) argument to silly proportions with the suggestion that any push for realism is silly in an army with superhuman wolf marines.

            This distorts the original argument by suggesting that one can’t strive for realism within a fantastical framework. Or ignoring that we all have different, subjective levels of being able to suspend our disbelief. In effect, the reply destroyed the possibility of nuanced interpretation by engaging in reductive “hurr durr, space werewolves, you are wrong.”

            Sure would be nice if people actually understood basic principles of dialogue and rhetoric before attempting to wade in and look clever.

          • Xodis

            That’s because you are using the term wrong. If anything it would be the fallacy of composition/division.

            Whats really nice is when people trying to be smug and lecture others were actually correct.

          • Thomas

            Then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the correct employment of this rhetorical device 🙂

          • Xodis

            Thats the middle ground fallacy, when in fact there is only disagreement when someone doesn’t know their fallacies since this is a 100% factual discussion.

            If “Space Werewolf Vikings” were not a thing and a logical yet extreme example, you would be 100% correct. Since “Space Werewolf Vikings” (or Space Wolves) is a quite common thing, its not reductio ad absurdum at all, and would be the composition/division fallacy since he is implying that 1 part of something (realism) has to be applied to all, or the whole must be applied to all parts.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            You are quite correct, while I do not believe I posted the most concrete counter point, I feel in the context of this discussion, and for the sake of brevity a light hearted joke comment was necessary to highlight the holes in arguments presented not only in the original comment, but these sorts of arguments as a whole.

            Ultimately GW are going for a more abstract streamlined game to promote better accessibility, enjoyment and sales.

            Complaining about realism at this stage (without knowing more of the rules) feels invaluable to the discussion and highlights some of the problems with accessibility and veterans that modern designers are trying to move away from.

          • Xodis

            Yeah I just figured you were making a joke too, but I completely agree with your analysis on GWs plans.

          • swillsswil

            Yeah, that’s not what reductio ad absurdum actually means. Look it up on wikipedia. Reductio ad absurdum is a legit way of proving how ridiculous your opponent’s argument is by showing how it leads to a ridiculous conclusion.

            You meant to say that this was a straw man fallacy by setting up an extreme extension of the argument to use as a basis for rebuttal that the debator never actually used.

          • Thomas

            It’s generally considered poor form in rhetoric because it often produces outcomes far-removed from the original point. Whether you consider it a legitimate way to counter an argument or a fallacy of stretching an argument to an absurd conclusion is largely a matter of perspective, but (at least in my experience), it’s generally considered a way of “countering” an opponent’s point by not actually engaging with its content in a meaningful way.

          • swillsswil

            How is it failing to engage in a meaningful way by extending the argument in a logical path? If one were extending it in some extreme, unstated intention, I can see how that wouldn’t be productive. However, not all reductio ad absurdum need be so extended.

            If you argue that the Earth is flat I can very easily use reductio ad absurdum to point out that by now someone should have fallen off the edge of the Earth to prove how silly your argument was.

            It is also a method used in mathematics all the time to set up logical contradiction to an argument, such as there being a “smallest rational number.”

            Odd to label all arguments of a type inferior. Sounds like a hasty generalization to me.

    • NIck Cathers

      “Can” is a very loose term though lasguns can hurt riptides now, but 72 shots aren’t going to be reliable for more than a wound, and they way they are going it looks like vehicles aren’t going to fear small arms in any meaningful way.

    • Munn

      I’m sorry immobilizing a land raider on an overturned trashcan or bush, or fencepost, or smal hill seems so much more realistic to you.

      • Crablezworth

        I’m sure the 12 pages of rules that are coming will be far more sophisticated -sips tea-

  • Thomas

    “God, why can’t the haters cultivate a positive atmosphere in the hobby!?”

    “GAH, HOW DARE YOU MAKE ANY CRITICISM OF GW, YOU TOXIC IDIOT! GET THEE FROM THIS FORUM AND NEVER DARKEN MY HOBBY AGAIN!”

    #TheSamePeople

    (Btw, I’m actually enthusiastic about all these changes. And even I’m finding you all obnoxious beyond belief. Reel in your fan boners and stop being so thin-skinned.)

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      Aren’t you just adding to the complaining here.

      • Thomas

        “Hurr, stop complaining about my incessant, fanboy nerd-rage because that’s just as bad as the original act.”

        That’s a nonsensical false equivalence. And doesn’t actually deal with any of the points I made, which suggests that you have nothing of substance to actually add, instead resorting to childish attempts at a “gotcha” moment that amount to little more than “I know you are, but what am I?”

        Once again, fanboys reveal themselves to be thin-skinned kiddies.

        • thereturnofsuppuppers

          Please stop using these buzzwords, it doesn’t work if you can’t correctly identify the fallacy.

          • Thomas

            Please, explain how what you said isn’t a false equivalence that implies that my complaint is as bad as your complaints.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            to steal a buzzwordy law… the burden of proof lies on you.

          • Thomas

            It actually doesn’t, since you made the original challenge to my statement 🙂

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            “That’s a nonsensical false equivalence”

            From your original post.

          • Thomas

            But that wasn’t the OP. That was a response to your challenge to my OP. Do you know how Disqus works?

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            It was your original challenge. Mine was just pleasant question.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            If you don’t want to back up your statements thats fine.

        • Kreoss4u

          Thomas, you kinda sound like you just finished a sophomore level logic class and are eager to try out your new skills. Seems a bit pretentious in this context, don’t you think?

          • Thomas

            Nope, graduated a while back, thanks. I’m just sick of angry fanboys immediately circlejerking over people saying something as simple and subjective as “this sounds bad.”

            Also, I have insomnia right now and have literally nothing else to do at 2am other than get into online arguments 😛

          • Kreoss4u

            Fair enough. I hope you get some relief from your insomnia. That sucks.

          • Thomas

            Ta, dude! It’s not all bad though, means I can stay up all night and have heated, rambling discussions with total strangers!

          • Jabberwokk

            The best kind.

            Also #rekt that kid.

    • I gett what you are saying, but we don’t know how this will actually work yet. Complaining about it repeatedly is also obnoxious. I mean, I haven’t played a game in two years AND I have a shelf full of Russ Hulls and I seem to have more faith that GW haven’t made heavy vehicles worthless than these people. People need to chill at least until we have some more info.

    • Crablezworth

      We’re friends now

  • Heinz Fiction

    Even Pyrovores viable? The end is truly upon us!

  • Simon Chatterley

    Some people seem to be getting a bit upset at the “a las gun can wound my tank”

    Pretty sure I remember Tom Hanks stopping a Tiger tank with socks and his Tommy gun in Saving Private Ryan. You shoot enough bullets at something and something might get lucky and go through an eyeslit or through a weak spot.

    Sure it won’t happen a lot but close infantry was ever the humble Tanks issue. 40k can be the same.

    • Marc Berry

      Hi that was a tiger tank and that ‘sock’ was full of high explosive which then blew the track off.

      • Thomas

        And he physically climbed atop the tank and fired into the hatches with his gun. He wasn’t shooting it from medium-long distance.

        • thereturnofsuppuppers

          So you’re saying the guardsmen should be able to defeat it only in the combat phase.

          • Thomas

            Again: I’m pretty much fine with these changes. I’ve said this multiple times. Stop trying to “gotcha” me because it’s just not working. I just understand the complaints of people who don’t like the system, think their issues are valid, and think they shouldn’t have to face the almighty GW circlejerk for expressing a different preference to yours.

            Because I’m a functioning adult who doesn’t care if someone doesn’t like my toys.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            GOTCHA

          • Thomas

            Thanks for proving right everything I’ve been saying about hyper-defensive fanboys 😀

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Surely now this is argumentum ad lapidem

          • I don’t know. You are arguing in favor of people upset about rules they haven’t seen yet. That hardly seems logical.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            He can’t even tell that i’m baiting him. He’s not very sharp.

        • Marc Berry

          Yes he physically ‘climbed’ ontop of the vehicle meaning he would of been in close combat in 40k terms but he didn’t fire at it penetrating it’s armour which is what everyone is arguing about here. The fact is a group of guardsman with lasguns taking down a land raider is beyond stupid.

          • Thomas

            I see where you’re coming from, I was basically trying to say the same thing you just did but the written word sucks at conveying stuff like that, sorry 😛

          • Marc Berry

            Hey no worries everyone’s emotions are running pretty high on all the forum’s over this:) On the QnA they have said that toughness would not be capped at 10 so I expect landraiders won’t be getting hurt by lasgun fire.

          • You realize this won’t happen though. Because the Lascannons, Autocannons, Battle Cannons, Artillery, Plasma and Melta are what’s going to kill your Land Raider. Aside from not knowing the details of how this will even work yet, there are tons of things in 40k that are beyond stupid. Can we at least put a pin in this until we learn the details?

      • Simon Chatterley

        And he then walked up and sprayed the insides with his tommy gun killing the crew. So sock and explosives stopped it…tommy gun killed it dead

        • Simon Chatterley

          The point is, it’s entirely possible a lucky shot could do something.

          If you play AoS you’d see the system works pretty well. Small arms just chips a bit off here and there…it’s the big hitting stuff that really hurts.

          And things can be fixed/healed keeping them in the game.

    • TenDM

      My theory is that if you’re going to get upset about that, then you’ve got to get upset that we fight in close combat with ground wars. Mechanically it makes sense that a lasgun can dint a Land Raider and that’s all that really matters. If you start pulling that thread you’ve got to admit that the very concept of a Land Raider driving around delivering guys is sketchy at best.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Guardsmen bust down airlocks with Laspistols in the fluff, with great skill, patience, and concentration, so chipping off wounds, one at a time, at dismal odds, wouldn’t be too upsetting to me.

      • TenDM

        Out of 30 skilled Guardsmen one of them is bound to get a lucky shot in. We’ve also got to remember Wounds don’t equal death, so that lucky shot is very unlikely to blow it up unless someone else has punched a hole in it already.
        Think Sanguinius. He didn’t kill Horus but he created the scratch that tipped the balance.

        • Simon Chatterley

          The space marine vehicles are modelled with sensors all over. I’d wager a fusillade of 150 shots strong enough to kill a man would damage them if they were hit. A tank with no eyes is pretty useless.

          I’d also wager that trained combat soldiers and there commanders would know this stand issue the “shoot the tanks eyes” command knowing that the guns have not a chance of penetrating ablative armour plating but can reduce its combat effectiveness of the vehicle.

          I think vehicles taking damage and becoming less effective over the course of a battle makes the most sense ever.

    • Crablezworth

      -facepalm- I think the spitfire might have helped

      • Simon Chatterley

        Firstly – it wasn’t a Spitfire

        Secondly – Wrong part of the film. You are referring to the End where all he has is his pistol and he’s shooting it anyway.

        But carry on 🙂

        • Stealthbadger

          Airplane? Nah at the end he blows up that tank WITH HIS FRICKING MIND!

  • ChubToad

    With these news, the amount of dusting that will take place will be epic. Still curious about the Psychic phase. I hope they’ll hit the nail with it.

    • Thomas

      Yeah, I’m curious about that too. One of my buddies plays GK and another plays 1k Sons so anything that tones down the psychic shenanigans is cool with me! I’m hoping powers become neat little boosts as opposed to ungodly death star factories.

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        Summoning is likely dead and replaced with reserves manipulation, seeing as there was talk of a Reinforcement mechanic on the Community page, so that’s one less bit of aggravation to deal with.

        • Thomas

          Here’s hoping. In my dream world, you could expend command points before the game to let units like Deathwing deep strike on turn 1.

  • Camoron

    There is a disturbing lack of negativity in this comments section. Are you guys ok?

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      its really just Thomas

      • Thomas

        Hi sweetie xx

        • thereturnofsuppuppers

          Got

        • thereturnofsuppuppers

          Cha

  • Horstradamus

    lasgun vs monolith
    😀

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      That tickles.

  • Well, credit where due, they’re at least very self-aware about their own reputation. Whether that will actually translate into a better game remains to be seen, but it’s a step in the right direction.

    Color me tentatively… tentative. I’m not excited about this, but I’m not upset over it either. For me, there was no place 40K could go but up from the Great Unclean One that was 7th… but there’s no guarantee it won’t just ooze sideways, either.

    I like the prospect of a clean slate, but I’ve been around for a couple of those now, and I don’t feel that GW has ever gotten one right. We’ll see if this new, seemingly humbler GW can.

    • Thomas

      I thought it was telling that they didn’t dispute that Riptides were OP or that Pyrovores were useless. I know this game will never be super-balanced, but I’m choosing to take this new, honest approach as a good thing.

      • Good intentions are meaningless if they lack the design skill necessary to follow up on them… and it’s been a LOOOOOOOONG time since anyone in the dev pit other than Vetock has impressed me.

  • Champildhir

    “might not of been able to watch” –> “might not HAVE been able to watch”.

  • Tushan

    “Everything is now a legitimate choice. Even pyrovores. Everything can hurt everything else because of the new types of profiles.”

    Happy about everything except this.

    I dont see any logic, nor narrative fluff in having 10 grots use their rusty revolvers to damage or kill a landraider.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      They might roll a bunch of Boxcars. And the LR might roll bad on it’s saves. But that’s a lot of might to contend with.

    • TenDM

      Everything in my current Craftworld’s Codex is a legitimate choice. It doesn’t necessarily mean everything is equal. Grots won’t be geared towards anti-tank roles. It just means nothing will be truly ineffective.

    • knightsanguis

      They probably won’t be able to destroy a Land Raider (unless they’re incredibly lucky of course), but they’ll now be able to do at least some damage to it. It’s better than not being able to do anything and it’ll certainly solve the cheese problem 40k has at the moment.

    • Koonitz

      Right, ’cause when the Land Raider fords a 3′ shallow river or runs over a chest high hedge, gets stuck (permanently), and loses 25% of its health (potentially destroying it), that’s much better than a grot getting a lucky shot on a chink in its armour….

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        In WWII, powerful tanks were often immobilized by terrain or damaged their tracks, but were not routinely destroyed by small arms fire…

  • Thomas

    Something nobody’s picked up on yet: RULES IN SCOTS, YA BAS.

  • Crablezworth

    Games Workshop: We got better at rules, we swear http://media.giphy.com/media/eH2KIxMVLq3Ha/giphy.gif

    • Koonitz

      You mean he tried to fire, but the Land Raider hit a rock and blew up. Y’know, how it happens in the game RIGHT NOW!

    • Jabberwokk

      Nah Man you got to forge the narrative. The bullet caused a low frequency vibration that caused a cascade system failure due to a tachyon pulse which triggered the self destruction measurement in the tank captains back left cheek pocket.

      Legit.

  • DeCold

    I just love how they missed “best” parts of the answers. – Now everything can be hurt by everything. Yes, that means a grot can now destroy your baneblade, enjoy. And also since units that charged in CC attack first now, your grots can now kill custodians. Isn’t it a narrative we all strifed for? TBH i feel like GW did no playtesting this and just copy/paste simplified rules of AOS into 40k, therefore removed all strats from the game.

    • Koonitz

      Did you even read about the Q&A. They did extensive beta testing, including testing with ALL available models and units, with at least three of the major tournament organizations in the US scene. Named were Frontline Gaming (ITC), Adepticon and NOVA.

      If THEY agree that what is to be produced is balanced and fair, are you honestly going to sit on that stick and twist over the fact that a grot can, if extremely lucky, knock a single wound off a vehicle that will likely have 20 or more wounds?

      Or would you like me to point out that a Land Raider, in this current, Emperor blessed, gold gilt edition of the 7th coming, can be destroyed by a bush?

      • DeCold

        So they consider that consulting with competetive people is good then? The people who think unit is not good enough if you cant use it in invis/2++ deathstar? Yeah we in for a good future here. And let me remind you that you can get platoons of guardsmen with like 40 men. There is no things of luck but rather dice pools.

        • Koonitz

          Well, if that’s how you feel, can I have your stuff? No, you can’t have it back if you’re proven wrong and things turn out better than anticipated.

        • Koonitz

          Y’know what, nah. I’ll bite and actually give you an argument. First and foremost, we know this game won’t be like Age of Sigmar, however it is adopting a fair number of things from Age of Sigmar. As such, I’m going to make some strong assumptions of the upcoming ruleset to fill in the blanks to actually provide an argument because, otherwise, neither of us can really presume to do so. This argument will also be strictly based on rules, without delving into the narrative as to why or how a small arm weapon could potentially damage an armoured fighting vehicle like a Land Raider.

          Let’s assume a Guardsman and a Land Raider both follow reasonable assumptions of Age of Sigmar stat-lines. A lasgun is considered a weak ranged weapon. This is reasonably agreeable by all 40k players. In most cases, it has a statline that gives you a 4+ to hit and a 5+ to wound, with zero armor save modifier (or rend, as AoS calls it)

          In most AoS situations, ranged weapons provide you with a single shot, so we will assume all 40 of those Guardsmen give you a total of 40 shots (FRFSRF cannot be assumed to exist in the new edition, therefore we cannot assume these additional shots). I’ll get into possible rapid-fire additional shots later.

          A Land Raider, following AoS standards, will be an incredibly hardy, and tough, model. So it’s reasonable to assume it will have well above 12 wounds. 16 is fair, 20 is possible (Most monsters in AoS have 12ish wounds, tough ones have 16). Due to its heavy armor, it is reasonable to assume it will have a 2+ save.

          Now, let’s crunch the math, shall we?

          40 shots, 20 hits, 7-8 wounds. 2+ saves reduce that to slightly more than 1 wound.

          ONE WOUND! On a 16-20 wound model.

          Assuming rapid fire (and the likely unreasonable assumption that all 40 models are still alive and within 12″), that would double to 2-3 wounds. In AoS, 3 wounds is barely enough to bring a monster down to its first penalties on its damage chart. On a Land Raider with potentially 20 wounds, that’s barely more than 10% of its damage.

          Assuming current 40k point levels, that’s 200 points of infantry against a 250 point tank, doing less than enough damage to be able to reasonably destroy it in a standard 6 turn game without help.

          And THIS is what you’re worried about?

          Oh, and while we’re at it, the organizers of ITC/Adepticon/NOVA are not these “competitive” players you’re talking about. They’re “Competitive TOURNAMENT ORGANIZERS! People that have spent significant time attempting to create something possibly reasonable, maybe, somehow, balanced out of 7th’s mess of power creep to encourage people to attend their tournaments. For to NOT do so is to reduce attendance and cause them to potentially lose money. Organizing and hosting a tournament as big as these people run is not cheap. They HAVE to make it fun for as many people as possible.

          If you haven’t seen ITC’s rule-set, it nerfs some of the big things many people complain about, not LEAST of which is Invisibility, and rerollable 2+ saves.

          They have done A GREAT DEAL to TRY to make something of 7th Edition, and you have clearly shown your ignorance of their work.

          • DeCold

            Please name one thing they entend to make “not like AOS”, from what they announced they just copy paste everything, from warscrolls to 3-ways to play.

            No I’m worried that this “everything can hurt everything” will hurt list building. Both fluff and gameplaywise. Now you have to consider what units to bring to conter possible threats (unless you agreed on something with opponent). Now you just pour more dakka into list and use it.

            And on the part “Great deal to try” to make of 7th edition. No they didn’t. By which they just added more broken armies and rules for selling armies, to keep them selling. And armies that don’t… well they get chaos treatment of copy they formation and throw something boring in or even don’t get anything at all. Please tell me what they did to bring back Orks or Nyds to competetive screen? Also I use ETC more so I dont care as much.

          • Koonitz

            1) I don’t have to name anything, because they’ve already said it. The games aren’t cross compatible. Which means there will be considerable differences. My assumption is that they’re letting slip what is similar to AoS, because these are good things they’ve learned, but keeping what’s different under wraps to tease us.

            But, if necessary, I may have missed it, as I don’t recall hearing it in the Q&A session, it has been said by others quoting the session that most stats aren’t going away. Which means you may still see strength, toughness, and varying weapon stats because of that. Which means it’s entirely likely that while a lasgun can wound a Land Raider, it may prove to be even HARDER than in my example.

            2) It hasn’t hurt list building in AoS one bit. In fact, it’s had the opposite effect, diversifying it considerably. Instead of only being able to fit the exact things needed to counter the myriad things you might face (because you’re not playing a 5,000 point game), limiting list building quite a bit, or just taking the one Death Star that counters everything, you can reasonably take anything you want.

            Right now, the top tournament tables are, like they always end up at the tail end of every edition, stale boring and horribly samey with only the rare few exceptions that prove the rule. If everything is viable (whether by being useful, or by being able to damage everything, regardless), then you might see some diversity.

            3) “Great deal to try”, was not a quote referencing GW. It was referencing the tournament organizers, who tried, very much, to work around GW’s constant power creep.

  • Pete McGwire

    Looks like there will be a big market for point counting wheel markers. (my Knight is down to 23 wounds…..)

    • Keith Wilson

      lets start a business

  • Hazamelistan

    Thought about it for a moment:

    Templates: Guess I’ll miss them too. Never had an argument because of templates. Maybe I’m playing with people who know that this is a game and not about life and death. Also it added another tactical depth to the game. Spread out or the flamer will get you. Now it’ll make no difference if you put all your units in one space. Flamer will hit/wound x units.

    Codices: As always communication seems not to be one of the things GW can do really good. Instead of saying “We invalidate your codices!” which sounds like: “We burn your money we ripped from your pockets” it would have sounded much nicer (and less hurting) to say something like “We provide you with new statlines for free for the units in the Codices. The old one don’t work with the new ones.
    And the voucher thing” That’s more like a Errata I can deal and not like get rid of the stuff. Also the “trust us” part got hit hard by “There will be new Codices later”. That’s again grapping for my wallet and blowing the dream of “More money for miniatures”

    Length: 90 Minutes for 1500 Points would be great. I also would appreciate the hit/wound/save-Dial from AoS. Would save us casual players a lot of time which is mostly “What’s your Toughness? Okay, do I hit you on four or five.”

    All in all I’m slightly positive about the new edition. But again: Communication thing. In my opinion you can’t drop a bomb like that and not name a specific date in near future. For me it feels like the whole hobby is on hold when it comes to new models and buying anything

  • Basti Schreyer

    I find it strange how everybody seems to be most upset with the fact that “low power“ weapons could now concievably damage the strongest of armor.
    All the while people seem to forget that right now AV 10 vehicles can be glanced to death by S4 weapons. That’s why many army’s transports are regarded as useless right now.

    The underlying fear seems to be that now even the strongly armored Land Raiders might be “glanced to death“ in the same way Rhinos and many other APCs are now. That fact of 7th is why many people reverted to Land Raiders in the first place. They can’t die to rifle fire at the moment. Nobody seems to actually buy Rhinos for their army, only using them when they are a free gift your formation gives you.

    As was iterated multiple times already the common guardsman and his rifle most likely won’t become the goldstandard in AT technology.

    Look at it this way:
    Yes, everything can be damaged now but tanks WON’T die after three or four glances. A Land Raider might have 16+ wounds. If the first stat reduction happens after four, that would roughly equate to one penetrating hit now. However the overall survivability of vehicles would be much increased. Yes your tank will degrade but it will not blow up after a single lucky D hit. That is big in my book.
    What nobody seems to realize is that your average APC will also gain a W stat. That could single-handedly make APCs viable again. Think of your army as not just including one 16 wound Land Raider but also three 8 wound Rhinos. Suddenly shooting at the Land Raider with termis inside means free reign for the rest of the army.
    Then even if you neutralize the Raider turn one, the termis keep marching on, while three Rhinos full of angry marines unload in your face.
    That’s not as scary now because most transports die too quickly, leaving the transported units exposed. Giving APCs a bunch of wounds would allow most of them to live two or three turns without being immobolized. So essentially vehicles could work similarly to 5th editon where they required quite the investment of firepower to kill. But in 8th they slowly fall apart instead of weathering three turns of concentrated fire and then exploding to a single stray rocket.

  • william timonen

    Will them Warlord Titans not have wounds?

  • Camisa

    I dont play AoS, and i say it right, 20 hits 😉 if it works for me its good. But its strange to shoot a tank with a pistol 😛

  • Camisa

    So, you give me the worst example to counter me?? Question, does 2 bad things turns in 1 good?

  • Jabberwokk

    “GW reached out to several groups, notably they spoke with several of the big Tournament Organizers in the US for testing and feedback. That includes our buddies at Frontline Gaming, Adepticon, and NOVA”

    Dear all my hater’s:

    https://m.popkey.co/49c987/aWEo0_s-200×150.gif

  • piglette

    I’m really liking the sound of narrative army building with power level points. Sounds like it’s really easy to generate quick list.