8th edition, rise of the lasgun

Quote:

---

"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)."

---

... Yes because people only bring 10 lasguns to a fight.... Gentlemen I'm calling it now 8th will be the edition dominated by the basic weapon. Why take specialized lascannons when for the same price you get many more lasguns? the math he's dolling out here is terrifying. if a lasgun only wounded a 6 we'd be talking a different beast all together. but this is GW saying a lasgun will wound a 16 wound landraider on a 4+.... to do the math that's average of 192 shots to kill a land raider assuming BS 3. or roughly 9 squads of unupgraded lasgun soldiers or if you give them two turns about 4-5 squads which is the cost of the land raider, has over 3 times the number of wounds. That's a basic guardsman squad people. 8th edition will be the edition where no one bothers with specialized weapons because the bog standard infantry weapon is far more effective or at least versatile for the points.

That's my opinion YMMV

Edit: also replace lasgun with shoota, termagaunts, ect, concept remains the same. the basic cheap infantry weapon just got a lot more powerful

This is one of my major concerns. But I am going to wait and see.

If 'wait and see' is the enemy of debate, then I note that GW made a response to a FB question where someone talked about 50 guardsmen killing a LR, and GW responding with words to the effect of 'add a zero to that'.

One of the playtesters has said in the games he played, the weapons 'felt right'.

I too really don't want basic weapons attriting tanks to death but actually it may be worth it to get 1.5k in 90 minutes.

yeah the crux of the issue is going to be the to wound chart and vehicle toughness values. if the previous wound chart can be trusted i'd say T7 would just about fit right, as a lascannon would be just enough to wound on a 2.

Strength and Toughness are still in the game, And I highly doubt a Land Raider would be less then toughness 7, which is one point too high for a S3 lasgun to wound and also the toughness of a Dreadnought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warhammer Community - Warhammer 40,000: Unit Profiles

Strength and Toughness are still with us, and still use an opposing value principle (so much higher Strength will still wound on 2+, low Strength will wound on a 6+), and these aren’t capped at 10 any more either.
[url]https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/25/warhammer-40000-unit-profiles/[/url]

---

^That there debunks your assumption that basic weapons will rule the edition. A land raider (or any vehicle) can by toughness 10 or above, putting weapons like lasguns well without the boundaries of threats to such vehicles.

Here's a wound chart I threw together using the current one but extended to 20. I can see the current vehicles being between 7-15 in toughness and then have super heavies at 16-20 maybe more (it all depends if GW put a cap at all on stats)
Attachment 19646
The chart isn't perfect, as I would assume they may extend the 6+ to wound on the high strength weapons and change some of the 2+ to wound to 'auto' (I say if the S is X4+1 to the T, this means S5 auto wounds T1)

problem with that is we have someone at GW saying a lasgun is going to wound a land raider on a 4+/5+. Maybe he's just spitballing, that'd be swell. but we'll have to see till it comes out.

Okay yes a Las Gun just might take out a Land Raider in this new Edition 4+ to hit 6+ to wound, now yes Toughness and Strength are in the game still but what GW has not stated is just how they will work other than the standard.

But a Squad of 10 Imperial Guard will not be able to take out a Land Raider with one round of shooting but they just might be able to take out a very badly damage Land Raider, because what we have not seen is the impact of vehicles getting damage.

It could be quite possible that they could lose toughness with they take to much damage, armor being blown away or blasted open.

But while the Imperial Guardsman will see a buff with this Edition the real weapon that you need to concern yourself with is the:

Flamer

Str 4 D6 hits that automatically hit but no armor modifier.

Why is this weapon going to be important (well at least for the Orks), can we say Ork Burner Boyz?

Unit of 12 in a Trukk means 12 x D6 hits or around an average of 32-42 hits, very nasty.

Plus consider a unit of three Eldar Dreadnaughts armed with Scatter Laser and 2 x Flamers not as bad as the Ork Burner Boyz but they will better ability on stay in the game.

Im pretty sure GW themselves have conceded everything can wound everything (although some may be less likely to) and that means we can dispense with the old chart.

In fact seeing some comments out there on charts we may not see any chart.

Okay, assuming a guardsman hits on a 4+ and can wound a landraider on a 6+ and let's imagine a landraider probably has a 2+ armor save and 12 to 16 wounds... it's safe to say you are better off not shooting at the landraider. Would take an insane amount of lasguns to bring one down, even if it only had 2 wounds left.

Now if we look at the shooting mechanic for shadow war and to hit modifiers (which gw already admitted to for 40k 8th ed) it's safe to say that cover will make your 4+ to hit become a 5+ or 6+, meaning that cover actually makes sense, and that it plays a huge role. Shadow war was built with 8th in mind, and I am seeing tons of similarities carry across. I'm really digging the depth and simplicity coming.

Shadow War was 100% not built with 8th in mind, Shadow War is based on Necromunda which is itself based on 2nd ed. If anything, 8th was built with 2nd in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Madman

And I highly doubt a Land Raider would be less then toughness 7, which is one point too high for a S3 lasgun to wound and also the toughness of a Dreadnought.

---

GW said everything can damage everything. So that means S3 will also be able to hurt T7. Probably like you need a 6 and a re-roll on 4+ or 5+ or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denzark

Shadow War was 100% not built with 8th in mind, Shadow War is based on Necromunda which is itself based on 2nd ed. If anything, 8th was built with 2nd in mind.

---

From what people told me, it's more based on AoS actually. But sounds like AoS then is based on 2nd 40k or old WHFB editions.

Well ignore what people have told you, I'll tell you what I actually know for a fact. I have played 40K since 1990 (Rogue Trader), 2nd edition was my 'expansion edition' where I got into the game, and I've played Necromunda and SWA.

Necromunda is 2Ed 40K with a few extra details for casualties, pinning, beefed up rules. SWA is a near carbon copy of Necromunda rules with the exception that the factions are different and the missions/campaigns are different.

8th is shaping up to be so different from anything we have seen before and whilst there are 2ed-esque elements it cant really be said to be based on.

GW is turning 8th Edition 40K into

Age of Sigmar 40K

Which is not good.

Any particular reason why - my group seems delighted with the cutting out of rules bloat. I reserve judgement until it arrives but there is a lot of people seemingly unimpressed - Eldar players per chance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denzark

a lot of people seemingly unimpressed - Eldar players per chance?

---

I don't see why that should be related to Eldar-players (is someone hating Eldar-player by chance?). After all, it doesn't really matter how core rules work - like at all. It comes down to how much points the units cost and what abilities they have. Eldar could turn out to be either total crap or to still be insanely overpowered. Nobody can tell yet, not even Eldar-players.
If anything, players of melee-centric armies might still not be fully happy with the core rules, since melee-units from my point of view will need some buff on their warscrolls or get cheaper.

Well for many Eldar players they just might be able to dust off miniatures/units that have been sitting in cases due to sucking for over 15+ years.

But you are right when it comes down to point costs.

Imperial Guard are dirt cheap point wise but they are cannon fodder. Guardians cost more and come with the worst Infantry Weapon in the game (right now). Now they are not ever going to get their 24 inch range back or the ability to use Las Guns. But they do look to be getting 4 additional inches so will have a range of 16 inches. Do not know about the Dire Avengers if they will lose 2 inches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sainhann

GW is turning 8th Edition 40K into

Age of Sigmar 40K

Which is not good.

---

Too early to make that claim. I enjoy AoS but do feel they destroyed much of what people loved in the game, not to mention destruction of its lore. I have also played 40k since 90 and can say an overhaul is a good thing. As much as I hated seeing the movement attribute go away moving into 3rd ed I was happy to see Int, Cl and Wp go, not to mention the elaborate polyhedral nightmare that was armor pen at that time. The new streamlined rules didn't lessen the tactical options and freed up time and ambiguity. Maybe a little bitter about the nerfing of my Harliquins.

Not saying that this edition will answer all prayers or even be good; just saying it's folly to take 5% knowledge and make a 100% claim.