8e - Leaked rules

It literally says 12" from your opponent's deployment zone (read table half). It's going to be a 24" gap between the closest models and more if someone wants it to be.

Frontline are saying that vehicles move a lot further than in 7th. Currently our boats are moving 12" or 24" if they turbo. I'm going to extrapolate that our boats are going to be moving 24" base. Maybe they'll dial it back to 18" but they could also extend it out to 36" if turbo is still a thing. But I'm guessing they're going to move 24" and still fire at full capacity. If wargear on vehicles is still a thing then Raiders should be able to pick up some decent gear for CC. Troops inside with pistols can also shoot inside CC. Hopefully our Wyches (and maybe our Warriors) will get pistols standard. So you could have a turn 1 assault with Raiders and pistoliers on board doing some minor to moderate damage and forcing the enemy to fall back, taking the initiative away from them.

You won't get foot slogging charges though because you have to disembark before the vehicle moves.

The 9" DS rule is great, particularly how it interacts with all the 8" weaponry that would otherwise murder a unit before it got to react. I wonder if we'll get Webway portals that might override this, allowing us to get closer? Or is Hellions will get to DS and charge with some punch? Outside of webways and Hellions I don't see any of our units specifically wanting to charge out of DS or to get a first turn charge, outside of a webway built meatgrinder unit or a hard hitting Hellion squad (if it is indeed capable of that). Otherwise you'd be better served by bidding your time and striking at a time of your choosing, not jumping down their throat instantly. Hopefully the new DE will play more subtly than that.

Demantiae wrote:

Frontline are saying that vehicles move a lot further than in 7th. Currently our boats are moving 12" or 24" if they turbo. I'm going to extrapolate that our boats are going to be moving 24" base. Maybe they'll dial it back to 18" but they could also extend it out to 36" if turbo is still a thing. But I'm guessing they're going to move 24" and still fire at full capacity.

I'm guessing you didn't see the article on Transports then? A Starweaver, which is basically identical to a Venom has 16" movement.

Keep in mind that you can choose when to deploy your shock troops. So basically 1st Turn is possible and with a bit of luck rolling Assault, you got a first turn charge.

Maybe I should stock up on Hellions...

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Draco wrote:

CptMetal wrote:

Only if we can move with our transports and get out to attack in one turn.

I thought this was the Grotesque strategy where we just ram the vehicles with guys on board into combat, vehicle dies (maybe) in combat, then we pile out and assault next turn?  

So that is a 2nd turn assault and not a first turn assault...like I said I just don't see there being that many units that can expect to make it into assault on the 1st turn unless of course your opponent goes first and shortens the distance.

No. If you go first you can move a Raider/venom up 16", fire out of it, and then immediately have the transport (not the passengers) charge. This is important, because on the opponents turn they have to Fall Back and loose all the shooting power of whatever you charged. Then turn 2 you disembark and actually murder it.

Quote :

If you both deploy as far up the table (18" away) and lets say Wyches move 8" (not confirmed) then of course you only end up needing a 9" charge move to get within an inch.

With a 16" move, a "starting line" deployment with 24" separation leaves only 8" between opposite units. Which means 7 on the dice +1. Even if they deploy right at the back (Tau) it will, at most, buy them a turn while you control the whole board and hide behind midfield terrain ready for turn 2.

Quote :

If I had deployed first and set my Wyches up at the front of the deployment zone, then I would be surprised to see my opponent deploy within range of a 1st turn charge...like I said they would have to be an idiot.

Read the deployment rules again. In Only War you alternate placing units. So they put something down on the table and then you get to put a Raider directly in front of it. Repeat for their entire army. And even if you have to place first, that's only a single unit out of position.

Basically, while the codex update is merely Ok, the changes to the basic rules heavily favour us.

Voidhawk wrote:

No. If you go first you can move a Raider/venom up 16", fire out of it, and then immediately have the transport (not the passengers) charge. This is important, because on the opponents turn they have to Fall Back and loose all the shooting power of whatever you charged.

We need more information. Right now, based on what we've seen, we have no real reason to believe that most things would fall back from said vehicle. From what we've seen, vehicles aren't that scary in combat, so many things will probably just stay and kill it.

If melee is also the bees knees that they're making it out to be, we may also find ourselves looking down the barrel at line after line of things we don't want to charge.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:

If melee is also the bees knees that they're making it out to be, we may also find ourselves looking down the barrel at line after line of things we don't want to charge.

That's another worry I have. If other armies don't pay the same points for mobility that we do, they'll have more for killing power and survivability. I don't want us to have to commit three times or more the number of points in order for us to reliably take down choppy units if we ourselves are running primarily choppy units.

I myself will probably be running a mix of wyches and warriors in Raiders and more warriors or Trueborn in Venoms but I don't want to be strategically handicapped (in the grand scheme of things) if I want to run a Wych cult.

Having to disembark before moving the vehicle seems really nonsensical to me.

Maybe there are new health and safety regulations that forbid anyone to disembark from a ehicle until it's completely stopped?

amishprn86 wrote:

Im really hoping Hellions will finally be good

I fear that ship has already sailed for me. If ever I'd wanted them to be good, it would have been before I dismantled mine to create some Malevolents for my Corsair army.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Especially when we lost our advantage from having high Initiative. This is the one area of the rules that most concerns me at the moment. I really hope there's something we're missing because as it stands we've taken a serious nerf in our chances of surviving combat.

I've been thinking the same.

As I've said before, extra movement is useless as a replacement because it means our infantry is automatically outclassed by anything with a jump pack or riding a bike or thunderwolf.

By the same token, I'm also concerned that it will drastically change the feel of our army. Speed in combat was one of the few things we excelled at, and yet it seems that we've lost that entirely with no replacement in sight.

well we might get drugs that say always strike first or some haemy tool that adrenalizes our units to always frak crap up. we dont know

doriii wrote:

well we might get drugs that say always strike first or some haemy tool that adrenalizes our units to always frak crap up. we dont know

We might, but there's been no mention of anything like that so far, and GW long ago destroyed any trust or hope I had in them.

Voidhawk wrote:

If you go first you can move a Raider/venom up 16", fire out of it, and then immediately have the transport (not the passengers) charge. This is important, because on the opponents turn they have to Fall Back and loose all the shooting power of whatever you charged. Then turn 2 you disembark and actually murder it.

A lot hinges on how tough the Raider ends up being. Because if it isn't tough enough, then instead of falling back the enemy pile in, surround your Raider and kill it in melee - and since none of your murder dudes inside can disembark they are all dead!

Creeping Darkness wrote:

Voidhawk wrote:

If you go first you can move a Raider/venom up 16", fire out of it, and then immediately have the transport (not the passengers) charge. This is important, because on the opponents turn they have to Fall Back and loose all the shooting power of whatever you charged. Then turn 2 you disembark and actually murder it.

A lot hinges on how tough the Raider ends up being. Because if it isn't tough enough, then instead of falling back the enemy pile in, surround your Raider and kill it in melee - and since none of your murder dudes inside can disembark they are all dead!

This is the thing i'm most concerned about, dont forget we only get a 5+ vs shooting so we wont even get a save in melee.

IMO i think (from very little we have seen) just making an assumption that our melee units will be Talos, Beastpacks, Reavers and Hellions.

Where are you getting that raiders have an armor save value of -? The 5+ was talking about their invulnerability save (which only works versus shooting) not its armor save, so have you seen a datasheet for them that gives them no armor save?

Quoted from the article: "With a toughness value and wounds, these vehicles are also much more durable. Lastly, these vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save versus shooting attacks which will help when getting blasted by heavy weapons, and they ignore the -1 penalty to shooting heavy weapons after moving, keeping them agile."

CurstAlchemist wrote:

Where are you getting that raiders have an armor save value of -? The 5+ was talking about their invulnerability save (which only works versus shooting) not its armor save, so have you seen a datasheet for them that gives them no armor save?

Quoted from the article: "With a toughness value and wounds, these vehicles are also much more durable. Lastly, these vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save versus shooting attacks which will help when getting blasted by heavy weapons, and they ignore the -1 penalty to shooting heavy weapons after moving, keeping them agile."

B.c we never get survival things and there is nothing that says we are getting an armor save.

I hope i'm wrong, but sense they pointed out the 5++. We already had a 5++ in wear gear (vs melee and shooting) and on venoms so why would they point this out and not that we get an "armor save"?

An armor save would be more of something to point out for DE over a Nightshield nerf rule.

I think they pointed it out because it sounds like we got the Flickerfield back for all our vehicles at the cost of our vehicles being able to use it in melee.

See isn't GW generous they gave us back what they took away, just ignore that they made it a worse version.

CurstAlchemist wrote:

See isn't GW generous they gave us back what they took away, just ignore that they made it a worse version.

It's especially annoying given that our transports can now voluntarily charge into combat.

amishprn86 wrote:

B.c we never get survival things and there is nothing that says we are getting an armor save.

I think we will get one, just not a good one. Probably either 4+ or 5+.

amishprn86 wrote:

IMO i think (from very little we have seen) just making an assumption that our melee units will be Talos, Beastpacks, Reavers and Hellions.

I'm thinking along the same lines. I really don't see any melee unit that requires a transport being a worthwhile investment for us in 8th.

Thing is with the change to toughness and wounds on vehicles we will be getting an armour save. I think the star weaver has been shown with a 4+ so at least enough to protect from small arms fire. The fact we would appear to be getting a 5+ inv as well would potentially make us very good against anti tank weapons also (more so than the other races), especially if jink isn't a thing anymore

Rusty293 wrote:

Thing is with the change to toughness and wounds on vehicles we will be getting an armour save. I think the star weaver has been shown with a 4+ so at least enough to protect from small arms fire. The fact we would appear to be getting a 5+ inv as well would potentially make us very good against anti tank weapons also (more so than the other races), especially if jink isn't a thing anymore

I wouldn't put much stock in that 5++ save. It's nice, certainly, but a 1/3 chance isn't something I'd want to rely on.

More importantly though, I think we're going to be really vulnerable to S5+ weapons. Especially with Twin-Linked weapons now having 2 shots and also with these weapons having a better chance of wounding us. S5 weapons used to need 5s to wound us, now they need 4s. S6 weapons have gone from needing 4s to needing 3s. Small arms fire may also be more deadly, given that Bolters and such now have twice the chance to wound us.

I can see stuff like Scatter Laster, Shuriken Cannons, Heavy Bolters and the like shredding our vehicles.

Definitely wouldn't say that the 5++ will be much help but against dedicated anti tank weapons that would negate our standard armour save it's a bonus that other races may not have. You are correct though, if our vehicles toughness is indeed 5 then they did get easier to kill. That said the changes to exploding vehicles do benefit us slightly in that models only die on a 1 rather than on a 3+ like in 7th (granted we did get a save against those wounds but I could never make them).

Rusty293 wrote:

Definitely wouldn't say that the 5++ will be much help but against dedicated anti tank weapons that would negate our standard armour save it's a bonus that other races may not have.  

Oh, absolutely.

Rusty293 wrote:

That said the changes to exploding vehicles do benefit us slightly in that models only die on a 1 rather than on a 3+ like in 7th (granted we did get a save against those wounds but I could never make them).

I think this change will be a boon for our infantry, but a potential problem for Grotesques (losing a whole Grotesque for each roll of 1 is rather unpleasant). I also wouldn't want to have a lone character in a vehicle anymore.

That said, I imagine that this will hurt many other races much more than it does us.

Bolter did cause a glance on a 6.
Now they'll probably Wound on a 5+ but afterwards we get a 4+ Armour Save. All no changes in survivability there.
But we got now wounds so we actually got better.

CptMetal wrote:

Bolter did cause a glance on a 6.
Now they'll probably Wound on a 5+ but afterwards we get a 4+ Armour Save. All no changes in survivability there.

Except that we had a 4+ Jink save before.

CptMetal wrote:

But we got now wounds so we actually got better.

Fair point.

But the jink effectively crippled the venom or raider. Not the troops inside but now they can much(!!) further and still be useful.

I did some number crunching for how many firings on average it takes to destroy a Venom using 7th against what we know of 8th.

Some assumptions, which could change the outputs substantially:
* Venom is a Starweaver statline with a 5++
* Disintegrator is S5 AP-3 Dmg2 Heavy 3
* Scatter Laser is S6 AP0 Dmg1 Heavy 4
* No cover or hit modifiers in place
* Bolters not in rapid fire range

The number of times a weapon needs to be fired to destroy a Venom:

Weapon............7th Edition...........8th Edition............% Change
Bolter...............27.0...................54.0....................+100%
Disintegrator......4.1.....................4.5.....................+9%
Scatter Laser.....2.1.....................6.8.....................+218%
Dark Lance........4.7....................7.3......................+55%
Lascannon.........3.9....................7.3......................+87%

That's a solid improvement across the board, especially for the Scatter Laser if my guesses at the stats are right. Maybe not enough to right everything, but expect the Venom to be tougher than it is now.

That sounds nice. Now let that just be true and I´m a happy little sadistic space elf.