40k 8th Edition – Unit and Weapon Profiles

As each day rolls along, we are getting more information. The past two days has been unit and weapon profiles.

Pretty much the exact same we are used to with a few significant changes. No more initiative stats – whoever charges now strikes first (with later rounds alternating turns). I both like and dislike this. I like this a lot as it goes back to what we spoke about in the rumors – movement is so important already and now becomes even more important for both shooting, combat and defense. This is huge – you must get your movement right. There is no dice rolling here (hopefully difficult terrain is still a movement modifier and not random) and thus you have all the control. It also flat removes the silliness that terrain impacted on combat (other than changing charge distances) with assault grenades being a must. Anyone who did not have them was at a huge disadvantage but since nearly everyone could get them, it was often a moot point. Removing this necessity is good.

I dislike it because I feel like the above could have been encapsulated with a modifier stacking system. I.e. charging gives you +3 initiative, charging through cover -3 initiative, charging with assault grenades gives you +1 initiative, charging against defensive grenades / templates gives you -1 initiative, etc. This is probably going against their grain of streamlining and unifying however, and would have required keeping in mind more rules.

Either way, I like the changes as we know them so far in this instance which feeds into the next point.

Movement profiles. Yes yes yes. Looking at just Tactical Squads and Terminators, that one inch difference might not seem a lot when we consider the ranges of 40k weapons (unlike say X-Wing Infinity or Warmachine / Hordes) but if we refer back again to the concept of movement being the most important phase, this changes things drastically, especially when we start looking at other rules interactions. Think Run!, moving through cover, charging, etc. If a Terminator can only run 5″, that one inch is multiplying quickly.

Ballistic Skill and Weapons Skill are now straight X+ to hit which removes two tables from the table. I imagine there will still be modifiers here but it makes it easier to calculate with the classic 1 always being a miss remaining.

The final big change is wounds. Remember, that’s a Dreadnought in there and it has a wounds value. This goes to the Q&A section where they referenced Armor Values would be obsolete and I for one am an initial fan but will need to see what the other rules interactions will be like (i.e. for every 3 wounds lost do you lose a BS/WS/A, etc.?). Will we also see an uptick in the wounds available for original Monstrous Creatures? Also just as significantly, the Terminator has two wounds giving the game designers more flexibility when making models (no longer are infantry just 1W or super tough infantry like Paladins almost as durable as non-Marine character (T3/W3).

All in all, first glimpses at the statline leave me happy. So what about the weapon profiles?

Again, very similar looking but with a few significant changes. Rapid Fire 1 looks like it could be replacing Torrent and streamlining that rule where you get Rapid Fire X shots at maximum range and Rapid Fire 2X shots at half range. Potentially – will need to wait and see but would make sense. Anyway, to the more significant changes.

Templates are gone as indicated in the Q&A and we are instead left with an automatically hitting D6 weapon. The community page feels this will make them the special weapon of choice for 8th edition but I am skeptical (without seeing the rest of the special weapons and points, I am fully prepared to be wrong here). Randomness is something I don’t like, so D6 could mean it’s just as effective as a rapid firing bolter and as effective as six rapid firing bolters (assuming 4+ to hit and rapid fire range). When we compare to old templates, the ceiling is lower (clumped up enemies) and your floor is lower (very rarely would you only ever get one model under the 8″ template) but your average probably works out the same (assuming an enemy trying to avoid being hit by a template, you’d fit 3-4 models under one flamer template) if not a little worse. It is however, much more effective at dealing with one or two models given those hits stack or also dealing with models at the fullest extent of its range (which may make for good sniping opportunities if such rules still exist). Regardless, it’s a nice streamlining changing but I don’t think template weapons will take over the world. I again, am prepared to eat this statement. (oh also, no denying of cover like templates used to…)

Secondly we see the AP changes. No more straight AP values but what looks like AP modifiers – none on the bolter or flamer and -3 on the Lascannon. One assumes then that a lascannon will drop your save by three (so a 3+ would become a 6+ and a 4+ would become a dead+). Cover apparently adds to a save modifier though I am curious to see then if Space Marines will walk around with a 2+ save all the time thanks to cover but will wait for official word on how that works. Either way, another nice streamlining effect while also allow weaker armoured models the opportunity to roll their saves against your standard weapons.

Finally we have damage. D weapons are gone. Thank goodness. So much thanking of goodness. In its place we don’t have a S10 cap and we have a damage modifier – for the lascannon this is D6. Again, I don’t like that randomness – you could have one measly wound (12.5% damage) (or to be fair, zero but we will assume its taking a wound here) to a Dreadnought or drop its durability by 75%; that’s a huge range of damage. I think a straight flat value would have been better here (like 3 for a lascannon, 2 more a missile launcher, etc.) but it still adds a bit of the flavour that AV had (first hit could explode your tank) which will hopefully balance itself out across the game. The timing of this roll will also be critical – do you wound then roll D6 before saves or do you wound, roll save and if failed, roll wounds. The former is more likely to cause a spread of damage and the latter could make heavy weapons very inefficient. Either way, I like it for being able to do more damage to characters / MCs but worry about its ceiling of damage.


So those are the changes so far – in general positive though I will always complain about randomness :). Thoughts to date?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

28 Responses to “40k 8th Edition – Unit and Weapon Profiles”

  1. casperionx says:

    The one thing I think you missed was the implication from the article high strength guns wound double toughness out multiple wound models. Could be wrong when full rules are released but that’s the implication

  2. Kirby says:

    Here's a good example of the damage a lascannon could do from 7th to 8th vs a Dreadnought with the info we have now. Averages are similar but 1 shotting exists in 7th and there's a much high likelihood of two shotting in 8th ed based on the info we have now.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/67

  3. Ish says:

    I am surprised that the Boltgun wasn’t given a –1 Save modifier; It would have made a Marine versus Marine shootout into a straight 50% chance to hit, 50% to wound, and 50% to save… 4+, 4+, 4+. Which seemed intuitive to me as they are the baseline unit in the game. OTOH, not giving a Save modifier to boltguns works out better for all the lighter armored basic infantry units out there and helps reinforce the narrative that Power Armor is just that friggin’ durable.

    I do wonder if AoS-type “Mortal Wounds” will be a feature and if we’ll see any type of unmodifiable Saves for certain units?

  4. wellspokenman says:

    Not a fan of the D6 on the Lascannon, and the I'm curious how WS will be handled for CC specialists. Everything else is fine to good. I think Flamers will be good in numbers. A Command Squad w/ 4 Flamers that dismounts close enough can do 4D6 hits automatically. Yes there is some randomness, but I think an average of 14 autohits will be a decent value if the costs haven't changed. A lot depends on things like overwatch, which we know nothing about yet.

    • Matt-Shadowlord says:

      ' A Command Squad w/ 4 Flamers that dismounts close enough can do 4D6 hits automatically' – we will have to see if such a squad weapon selection still exists in the 8th edition. They'll have spent time trying to balance the codexes too, so we certainly can't take anything for granted.

      • wellspokenman says:

        That's true. A lot of the complaints of Lasguns damaging heavy armor are based on the assumption that both blobs and FRFSRF are still a thing, and we have no idea if they are. Honestly, I'm less interested in mechanics than how the balancing worked out.

  5. artemi71 says:

    The big takeaway that I'm getting from the Flamer is that 40k movement trays are now officially a thing. You're not gonna want it for everything, obviously, but it'll make thing so much easier and save a large amount of time if your blocks of Ork Boyz or Guardsmen can just be mounted up and slid 6" forward each turn.

  6. Matt-Shadowlord says:

    We've only a glimpse of the rules, but even so the lack of something like ignore cover on the flamer was surprising.

    I do like the direction this is all heading though!

  7. Matt-Shadowlord says:

    Armour Penetration being a modifier rather than a binary Yes/No is a terrific change IMHO.
    Terminators will still be better at shrugging off Missile Launchers than Marines, for example, but no longer 6 times as likely to ignore the damage.
    (But don't stress Terminator-fans, you get 2 wounds).

    It will take getting used to, but it's real a game changer when it comes to unit and weapon balance.

    • Kirby says:

      We don't know how invulnerable saves work yet – was thinking of this last night and it could work like another armor layer.

      I.e. against a lascannon, a Terminator goes from a 2+/5++ to a 3+ (losing 2 AP to drop the invulnerable save and then a further one from their normal save). This would make 3++ though crazy good so probably not given a Lascannon is likely to have one of their higher AP values for something that can be taken regularly (compared to previous editions).

  8. Manu says:

    We still don’t know how cover will affect the game. If being behind cover affects the to-hit rolls, then the templates being auto-hits will mean they ignore this modifier altogether.

    Having the cover adding to the armour save sounds a little OP to me (as you said, camping Marines will be saving with +2 all the game).

  9. Desc440 says:

    Out of all the changes so far, non-binary AP is my favourite. I'm glad they are unifying the stats, but I would have liked a bit more granularity there for vehicles – different toughness/armour save depending on facing. As it is, there will be less reasons to manoeuvre to the flanks of vehicles – tactical depth of the game has taken a hit.

    • Kirby says:

      That's certainly something that isn't covered with the current wound stat (I think you could have kept AV values and succeeding would take off a wound but make it easier to wound on sides / rear). That being said, we also don't know what vehicle movement would be like or if facings remain in the game somehow (I imagine they don't but they could be there).

      • Desc440 says:

        Well going by the Dreadnought stats, we can be pretty sure they don't, unfortunately. That's a real shame.

  10. Dean says:

    Anyone notice the Marines LD value dropped to 7? If everything else drops then we could see a lot more morale check fails!

    • artemi71 says:

      …Good catch! Now that we know how Morale works, thats 1 extra Marine dead by LD alone…

      • wellspokenman says:

        Assuming ATSKNF doesn't survive in some alternate form…

        • artemi71 says:

          It probably will, but they called out specifically the effect of many units being immune to it's various effects. I suspect it will be something like reroll morale checks, or maybe ignore LD negative modifiers, so they always check at their base? Something that effects the roll without effectively negating it.

  11. Marcus says:

    I like most of the rule changes, but think that with bigger emphasis on movement, think the D6 shots and wounds could be replaced i.e. Flamer 8 shots minus 1 for each inch of range used, and maybe something similar for the Wounds caused for each 10″ of range used cause 1 less wound, save some dice rolling and would feel a bit more rewarding for getting your units in position.