|
Post by Asyrean on Apr 26, 2017 10:53:30 GMT -6
hmmmm... the Bolter doesn't have any AP value at all?
|
|
T1m
new guy
Posts: 302
|
Post by T1m on Apr 26, 2017 10:58:18 GMT -6
hmmmm... the Bolter doesn't have any AP value at all? This seemed odd to me, but I also saw it pointed out that if a bolter had a -1 modifer, then something like space marines would only get a 4+ armor save against bolters, which seems excessive. I don't know, it seems like a weird tightrope to walk.
|
|
jesse
neophyte
Posts: 732
|
Post by jesse on Apr 26, 2017 11:12:39 GMT -6
I have to say that I'm not loving the new flamer rules.
|
|
|
Post by rogerspacem on Apr 26, 2017 11:14:27 GMT -6
Again gentlemen lets see all the rules. I think with all the rules strung together will make sense why the weapon profiles are as they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 11:20:50 GMT -6
I have to say that I'm not loving the new flamer rules. It's certainly a change. The old flamer rules were excellent versus hordes, but the new rules seem to be more general use. You'll get just as many wounds on average against one target as you would against a 20 man squad. Seems like a quality of life improvement on that front IMO, as there is really never a bad time to take a flamer. It is a D6 shot bolter that never misses.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Apr 26, 2017 11:21:05 GMT -6
So modifying armor instead of to-hit (which without doing math is probably close to similar effect... until you account for AP... but whatevs). I hope this doesn't mean a lascannon can ignore cover virtue of having a great AP value... sure you could argue that it can blast through a bush easily (and it would) but cover is taking into account being seen at all (think stealthsuits/lictors). Do not waste the mighty emperors holiest of energy cells! Well also take into account that lictors may have special rules amounting to doubling the cover save, or always having a flat 2+ if in cover, etc etc. The individual unit rules do all the heavy lifting in this type of game, the basic rules are just the framework within which they play.
|
|
|
Post by Asyrean on Apr 26, 2017 11:22:02 GMT -6
Again gentlemen lets see all the rules. I think with all the rules strung together will make sense why the weapon profiles are as they are. Absolutely. That's why I'm not upset at all. Just curious to see how it all pans out. As Tim said, if they applied the same Str modifier for the S4 Boltgun, say it applies a -1 to armor saves, then it could be pretty excessive. But at the same time, not even a nominal effect to armor saves at all seems odd too. Anyway, I'm sure it will make sense when we see the total picture. All in all, I'm extremely excited for almost everything they've announced so far.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Apr 26, 2017 11:28:21 GMT -6
Again gentlemen lets see all the rules. I think with all the rules strung together will make sense why the weapon profiles are as they are. Absolutely. That's why I'm not upset at all. Just curious to see how it all pans out. As Tim said, if they applied the same Str modifier for the S4 Boltgun, say it applies a -1 to armor saves, then it could be pretty excessive. But at the same time, not even a nominal effect to armor saves at all seems odd too. Anyway, I'm sure it will make sense when we see the total picture. All in all, I'm extremely excited for almost everything they've announced so far. Keep in mind this is all still being seen through the lens of 3rd-7th edition 40k. Not having an AP seems weird because we're used to all the 5+ and 6+ saves just being ignored by it. But what if there are vastly more 4+ saves now instead, which bolters wouldn't have cut through anyway? What if rapid fire can shoot twice at full range but prevents charging? What if every "standard" weapon has 0 AP to even the playing field? What if the overall damage output of everything is higher, so it made more sense streamline wise to just let units ignore more of the wounds? I do think that having the single most common weapon in the galaxy automatically ignoring 1/3 of all armor saves was a bit excessive. This for sure makes it more balanced (says the guy whos armies all have 5+ and 6+ armor in the current rules).
|
|
jesse
neophyte
Posts: 732
|
Post by jesse on Apr 26, 2017 11:32:46 GMT -6
The most common weapon in the galaxy is the trusted, reliable, and mighty Lasgun, scourge of heretics and xenos alike. I suspect lasguns will have an armour penetration value of -2, to represent the skill and might of the Emperor's Imperial Guard.
Also of note, Boltguns are listed as "Rapid Fire 1" under weapon type. Looks like rapid fire is changing.
|
|
|
Post by Joelercoaster on Apr 26, 2017 11:43:15 GMT -6
I saw the -3 earlier today, but it's more along the lines of separation of concerns. I fully agree that the lascannon can punch a hole in the wall, but given that I'm behind a wall in the first place should make it harder to know where to place the shot (aka, how cover used to modify to-hit).
It also still brings out the idea that units that rely on cover for survival often have low armor for that reason... but if the new AP just ignores both, then you're not gaining a real benefit from cover (which is a situational bonus) compared to a gun that always has a good AP.
Bleh, could be reading too much into it, and there are ways to make it work (order of operations could make all the difference... aka look at armor save, reduce by weapons AP down to -, then add any bonus from cover).
Shrug. I like the idea of some units eschewing heavy armor for camo, as it in theory should be a different type of survivability (vulnerable to weapons like flamers).
And Edit - as I realize there was a whole page of posts after the one I read...
Nick, you're right, obvs... unit rules will play a huge part in how this all works. Even things like a flat to-hit in combat we don't have the full story... I hate the idea of a Grot hitting an Avatar as easily as a Fire Warrior, but there could easily be a scaling rule of +X based on the opponents... something? I dunno. Really can only take these at face value, as hard as that is xD
|
|
|
Post by rogerspacem on Apr 26, 2017 11:54:16 GMT -6
I saw the -3 earlier today, but it's more along the lines of separation of concerns. I fully agree that the lascannon can punch a hole in the wall, but given that I'm behind a wall in the first place should make it harder to know where to place the shot (aka, how cover used to modify to-hit). It also still brings out the idea that units that rely on cover for survival often have low armor for that reason... but if the new AP just ignores both, then you're not gaining a real benefit from cover (which is a situational bonus) compared to a gun that always has a good AP. Bleh, could be reading too much into it, and there are ways to make it work (order of operations could make all the difference... aka look at armor save, reduce by weapons AP down to -, then add any bonus from cover). Shrug. I like the idea of some units eschewing heavy armor for camo, as it in theory should be a different type of survivability (vulnerable to weapons like flamers). Don't forget the nids will MOST likely have some kind of bonus ability with the venomthropes that will provide extra "armor" saves to their precious foot soldiers or maybe reduce your opponents BS when firing at your nids.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 12:42:24 GMT -6
Squats Confirmed!Not really, but its a cool white dwarf model.
|
|
jesse
neophyte
Posts: 732
|
Post by jesse on Apr 26, 2017 12:54:54 GMT -6
I'm disappointed that the whiskey bottles look like Jack Daniels. Come on, GW, the White Dwarf deserves better booze!
|
|
|
Post by Russell on Apr 26, 2017 15:08:53 GMT -6
I'm disappointed that the whiskey bottles look like Jack Daniels. Come on, GW, the White Dwarf deserves better booze! Grungni cares not from whence the spirits flow, only that it does.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Apr 26, 2017 15:11:55 GMT -6
So that mini is available May 6, does that sound to anyone else like we might have a new edition of warhammer 40k on may 6th?
|
|