Breaking News: Warhammer 40,000: Weapons


The following comes from the Warhammer Community page.

Yesterday we took a look at the profiles of units in the new Warhammer 40,000. But that is, of course, only half the story. The other half is the weapons they wield. Like units, these have had some pretty big changes, but are still recognisably the weapons you know and love.

Let’s take a look at three classic examples: the iconic boltgun, flamer and lascannon:


Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single would per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted.


The AP system is changing too. Rather than a binary yes/no on saves, the new Warhammer 40,000 uses modifiers – the lascannon will punch easily through power armour, while the bolter and flamer are, again, best deployed against less durable, more numerous targets.

Lastly, you can see that the flamer no longer uses a template. However, when in range, it causes D6 hits that do not have to roll to hit, and this applies even against units of a single model – this can be devastating, especially when used in large numbers <cough-Burna-Boyz-cough>, trust us when we say we may be entering the age of the flamer as the go-to special weapon of infantry squads the galaxy over – let the galaxy burn!


The rules team behind the new game have taken the opportunity to rebalance a lot of the weapons in the game, and with the new armour modifier system and removal of the cap of 10 on Strength values, we’ve made sure that every weapon has its use on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. D weapons, for example, are gone, and instead there is a scalable Strength and damage that matches the effectiveness you’d expect from every weapon.

So there you go.

We’ll be back tomorrow when we look at movement.

It’s getting exciting! What do you all think about weapon profiles? -Reecius


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

95 Responses to “Breaking News: Warhammer 40,000: Weapons”

  1. Michael Corr April 26, 2017 8:16 am #

    Pretty much as expected based on AoS.
    Interestingly, Marines appear to get a 6+ save against a Lascannon now, with Terminators retaining their 5+ save (a pseudo invulnerable save).
    D6 wounds for the Lascannon is also interesting. Based on the previously released Dreadnought profile, no more one-shotting a Dread with a Lascannon.
    Also, Flamers potentially got more effective against single models. Looking forward to the days of no longer spacing my Orks exactly 2″ apart to avoid templates!

    • Ytook April 26, 2017 8:39 am #

      Removing templates makes things so much quicker, not just from figuring out who’s hit but as you mentioned, not having to worry as much when moving large units and positioning.

      Interesting that damage of a hit is on a single model rather than spreading to the unit like in AoS, definitely the right call for 40K I think, otherwise heavy weapons like lascannons would be too good.

      Interested to see melta type weapons. I’m guessing they’ll have a less random damage stat, so lascannons get the range but the chance that they won’t actually do much after wounding, while meltas are guaranteed to dish out multiple wounds but only at short range.

      • Dom Tomaso April 26, 2017 10:28 pm #

        Heard somewhere that geedub asked you guys for 8th edition balancing feedback.

        If so why did “you” kill of the flamer as an anti horde weapon?

        Let me explain:

        Nowdays I take a risk (strategy) by getting close to an ork mob, even tankshocking them closer together in order for one or two flamers to easily cover 16-ish orks.

        In 8ed a flamer does 1D6 hits.
        In 8:ed there is NONE risk-reward to EVER getting close to the same ork mob for what 4 orks to die from two flamers.

        The flamer rule is a bad joke at best and will effectively kill of all and any armies that rely on flamers for anti horde, the very thing they are supposed to be good at plus forcing you to risk getting close to a horde in the first place.

        Who the F will ever want to pod or drive his salamanders or SoBs close to a blob of genesteelers or orks etc when all your effed up flamer can do is hit 3.5 of them killing 1-2.

        Am I missing something here?

      • Michael Corr April 26, 2017 11:52 pm #

        I think getting rid of templates is a good idea overall. Just a bit sad though, as my 3rd edition templates have been in use since release. Need to get a few more games in before their retirement.

    • winterman April 26, 2017 9:12 am #

      Yeah my guess is invulnerable saves become more like ward saves and become a lot more rare – probably as a help for all those characters that have to hang out on their own. I doubt terminators will have one in their base kit.

      • Threllen April 26, 2017 2:36 pm #

        Even as a daemon player, I hope to see this, too.

        Tzeentch daemons should not get a 2++ invul re-rollable. Invuls should be sparing and they shouldn’t get to crazy levels like 75% pass rate and higher.

        • Reecius April 26, 2017 3:32 pm #

          Agree so hard!

          • Blight April 26, 2017 4:24 pm

            Ok so confirmation that the 2++ re-rollable is dead. Thank you Reece. After all you know the new rules.

          • Reecius April 26, 2017 9:39 pm

            Lol, nice try =P I was just agreeing with the sentiment, not affirming anything.

      • Oliver Bengtsson April 27, 2017 1:21 am #

        I will point out that Shadow War Armageddon have terminators save on a 3+ using 2D6 and still have a 5+ invulnerable.

        • BBF April 27, 2017 11:12 am #


          You got my hopes up.

  2. xajinnn April 26, 2017 8:21 am #

    Hmm… cool stuff – rebalance explains maybe that boltguns cant ignore light armor anymore – okay for me, but i think many will call it unfluffy!

    • Reecius April 26, 2017 9:00 am #

      I think what you will find is that–based off of what we see here and yesterday–things moving towards a more even playing field between the various types of units. It appears to no longer be all or nothing, but with degrees of efficacy, which I personally think is great for the game.

      • David Alastair Hayden April 26, 2017 9:11 am #

        Getting rid of the all or nothing saves on boltguns vs light armor is such a great change for armies with lightly armored troops. Space marines already have lots of other great advantages vs those troops, like better armor and BS. Besides, it’s not like a 5+ save is the greatest thing ever. A lot of boltgun hits is still going to hurt–a lot.

        • Desc440 April 26, 2017 9:17 am #

          I find this disappointing, personnaly. I certainly hope Marines’ point cost was adjusted downwards to account for their lower lethality.

          • Threllen April 26, 2017 9:23 am

            And what about the fact that they have an increased survability considering the fact that Lascannons (and therefore probably things like plasma guns and what used-to-be AP3 weapons) do not completely penetrate their armor anymore?

            You can’t just look at the fact that their boltgun doesn’t penetrate 5+ or 6+ paper saves anymore in a vacuum. Lots of things are changing…

          • Desc440 April 26, 2017 9:31 am

            @Threllen: because chaff infantry just got more powerful, proportionally. They will almost always get their save now, and they have lost none of their potency at shooting. So an adjustment is needed.

          • AngryPanda April 26, 2017 9:44 am

            This sounds hilariously like current point costs were A- in any way balanced and B- as if Boltguns mattered. Is that the weird stick on the other side of a Combi-Grav?

          • Threllen April 26, 2017 10:28 am

            “They will always get their save” isn’t true at all. Plenty of weapons will penetrate it. Flamers and Boltguns won’t but that doesn’t mean there won’t be other weapons with -1 or -2 rends (or even -3 like lascannons).

            In a vacuum has a shooting duel between a guardman with a lasgun and a Space Marine with a bolter swung closer to the guardsman? Absolutely according to what we know of their profiles. But we have no idea what else has changed. What if standard infantry like guard don’t move 6″ anymore? What if their lower morale causes them to lose a lot more casualties when breaking? What if their save was downgraded from 5+ to 6+? You can’t make a blanket statement like “Space Marines should get cheaper” when you’ve seen literally 3 profiles and 3 weapons…

          • Reecius April 26, 2017 11:42 am

            Again, you are looking at one rules interaction out of context. I would wait to presume about points and such until you get a fuller picture of how things work as a whole instead of just as a part.

          • Jeff Biery April 27, 2017 6:44 am

            Isn’t their lethality increased overall since they can now shoot down various tanks and monstrous creatures? You’re talking about 1 in 6 orks surviving a salvo as if that’s a substantial damage loss but I think that’s more than made up for with them being able to damage bigger targets now. Based on damage alone, it would seem they should cost more now.

  3. Requizen April 26, 2017 8:28 am #

    Nothing surprising here! Can’t wait for Flamers to be the new hotness tho.

  4. CWDub April 26, 2017 8:34 am #

    Pretty interesting.. but I’m waiting to see what they do to grav 😉

    • AngryPanda April 26, 2017 9:59 am #

      Considering that last time they pretty much broke the game’s back over it I’m very curious about that myself.

      • Desc440 April 26, 2017 10:02 am #

        Grav was a Band-Aid fix to give Marines a chance against all the damn MCs. Now that Lascannons and other heavy weapons will be potent against them, Grav will likely be nerfed significantly.

        • abusepuppy April 26, 2017 7:34 pm #

          >a chance against all the damn MCs

          And vehicles. And Terminators. And other Marines. And light infantry. Everything in the game, basically. Because Marines were such a terrible (tournament-winning) army in 5th edition that they really needed a boost.

          But not just the “nerf to Smash” boost that MCs were getting already, and not the “krak grenades for everyone” boost they also were already getting. And also not the boosts to their bikes, the new flyers, their ally options, or all of the other things 6E gave them. They needed ANOTHER boost to help them out by getting what is hands-down the best gun in the game.

          • Desc440 April 26, 2017 8:09 pm

            AP, if you think krak grenades and flyers is what was holding Wraithknights and Riptides at bay, then I don’t know what game you were playing.

          • abusepuppy April 26, 2017 11:24 pm

            If you think Space Marines weren’t winning tournaments before Grav was put into the game, I don’t know what game you were playing.

          • Jeff Biery April 27, 2017 6:49 am

            Aren’t you the same guy frequently citing Tau as not being OP because they don’t have as many tournament wins as other armies so clearly their units and rules can’t be OP? I’m pretty sure there were more armies using Tau in the top 8 of LVO than there were grav players. Granted, I hate grav and think it was bad for the game, but I don’t think it’s any more OP than other things you defend on the Tau side. If anything, by tournament results it seems like space marines do need more buffs by your logic.

          • BBF April 27, 2017 11:15 am

            SM are the equalizer. They don’t have any crazy stuff like WK or SS… they just have to get er done .

          • abusepuppy April 27, 2017 3:14 pm


            You’re either thinking of me or VarianceHammer, since we’ve both made that point repeatedly. Tau simply don’t do as well as everyone thinks they do, though that’s not the same thing as saying they’re a bad army.

            There were two players using Tau in the top 8 of LVO (one pure Tau, one with an allied Riptide Wing), which incidentally is the largest number that there has ever been I believe. There were also two players using Grav weapons, which is as low as it’s ever been.

            Space Marines win (and place top 8 in) far more tournaments than Tau do, especially if you’re talking national-level tournaments like BAO, LVO, NOVA, and Adepticon. It’s just that shitty players at the middle tables get their teeth kicked in by Tau more often, so people complain about them more.

          • rageinducer April 29, 2017 3:00 am

            Man everytime i see a comment from puppy i grab popcorns and get ready to watch the fire burn! He’s sooooo damn salty!!
            I guess whenever someone talks about his army, its always underpowered. Even tau. Who can ignore cover on all weapons, intercept on your whole army (bye-bye deepstrike armies), overwatch 12″ (formation) with multiple units (bye assault armies).
            In my country we have 0 ITC event/year and none plays it.
            I do agree grav immobilization sucks and broke the use of vehicle, it is unbalanced and needed to be just a glance on a 6. But it did not broke the game. Without grav marines have no teeth to compete with 3 riptides oe 2 wraithknights per army. What in my non-ITC meta made marine shit to play against was barkbarkstar and superfriends.
            Moreover, our top tables are never marines, always screamerstar variants with its cancer 2++ reroll. Also grav is useless on daemons.

    • Michael Corr April 26, 2017 11:56 pm #

      Grav will be interesting to see. I suspect that Immobilisation will be disappearing from the game in general. Maybe -1 to movement for each unsaved wound?
      Perhaps grav would substitute the armour save for the toughness of the model, though this might make it more effective against vehicles than it was.

      • AngryPanda April 27, 2017 1:48 pm #

        It already made vehicles vanish from the game. More effective than that? Excuse me while I go and shudder in terror of this now.

  5. CWDub April 26, 2017 8:34 am #

    Pretty exciting.. but I’m waiting to see what they do with grav.. 😉

  6. Danny Ruiz April 26, 2017 8:42 am #

    The big change from AoS is that (again, I may be wrong as I haven’t played much AoS lately) is that multiple wound weapons can only impact one model at a time. If I recall correctly, in AoS, a D6 damage weapon can pick up multiple models while the rules spoiled now say that it can only pick up one model, regardless of how much damage is done. That really focuses weapons into specific roles for sure.

    • Anvil April 26, 2017 11:33 am #

      That is correct. In AoS, it represented weapons cleaving or hitting really hard. Wounds in 40k look like an additional layer of defense to consider when picking weapon options.

  7. Shiferbrains April 26, 2017 8:57 am #

    Since 40k seems absolutely overwhelming in 7th, I was about to dive in to AoS head first. Now, I may just wait it out and see where I want to invest my time and money, as I really love the 40k lore.

    This new rule set is really looking great.

    • Reecius April 26, 2017 9:01 am #

      Glad you’re excited! (But, still give AoS a try, it’s a brilliant game!)

    • Requizen April 26, 2017 12:05 pm #

      Play both! AoS is great and they’ll be similar but different enough that you’ll get two distinct experiences.

  8. HeavyPlate April 26, 2017 9:22 am #

    I love how they call out Burna Boyz. Makes me happy I just finished 15 last week!
    Are we really going to see the return of the Burna-Wagon? We’ll just have to wait and see.

  9. Threllen April 26, 2017 9:25 am #

    A bit disappointed in how lascannons worked out. I strongly dislike weapons that can vary that much in damage. It might take 9 lascannon wounds to kill Girlyman… or it might take 1 1/2.

    IMO a fixed number or even a 2+D3 would be better.

    • HeavyPlate April 26, 2017 9:35 am #

      Doesn’t it take like, a LOT more lascannon shots now to kill him with his 3++ and FnP?

      • Threllen April 26, 2017 9:53 am #

        Whoops my last comment was supposed to be in reply to you, see below.

    • Reecius April 26, 2017 11:44 am #

      Again, this is all out of context and just a sliver of the bigger picture, I would guess. Wait till you see how it all works as a complete rule-set before drawing any conclusions.

      • Anvil April 26, 2017 1:40 pm #

        I believe on their FB page, someone asked about Terminators being more survivable beyond just an increase to Wounds and how weapons work. One of the page moderators mentioned that there were more rules in the Terminators dataslate that contributed to their durability. It’s technically speculation until it shows up on the Warhammer Community website, but I hope that is the case, and I’m very curious how they and Great-Grand Papa Smurf will perform.

        • BBF April 27, 2017 11:18 am #

          Two wounds will help them survive small arms fire .

          Would be nice if they get 2d6 save again on 2+.

  10. Threllen April 26, 2017 9:43 am #

    Yes it does, but I’m just pointing out the variability this induces (plus we have no idea if he’ll have any sort of FnP or invul rules in 8th edition because they only showed us his profile – not any of his special rules).

    2 wounds with a lascannon could either do 2 damage or 12. That’s a massive range.

    • HeavyPlate April 26, 2017 9:57 am #

      That’s true and fair. I’m only trying to point out how before a lascannon wasn’t good at killing things like him, and now at least has a chance to do more than 1 wound.
      Consistency is great and strong, but it might have been too good in testing would be my guess.

  11. AngryPanda April 26, 2017 9:48 am #

    I’m way more curious on how turns and mechanics will work than gun stats to be honest. But still I can’t help feeling weirdly proud and happy that they finally realised how to create hype and built up anticipation like every other company that releases anything ever.

    • Desc440 April 26, 2017 9:54 am #

      I’m curious to know if they might not go to alternating unit activation for shooting too (since they’re doing it for CC). It would be a pretty big change but really, a needed one.

      • AngryPanda April 26, 2017 9:57 am #

        As much as I love my 40k armies I won’t put in the work needed to get them back into action for just a redone version of the old turns. They worked too hard to make me quit, if I come back it has to at least act like it’s a game that arrived in this century.

        • David Alastair Hayden April 26, 2017 10:33 am #

          Just because a mechanic originated last century doesn’t make it bad. Just because a mechanic is fashionable doesn’t mean it should be used. Alternating unit activations is a good mechanic that should be used where appropriate, not everywhere.

          I enjoy alternating unit activations for skirmish games. For a game like 40k that scales from skirmish to apocalypse, I’d much rather not. Not saying I wouldn’t play if they went that way, I love the game and I’m not quitting, but it would be the first change to disappoint me. And it would be a big disappointment.

          • Desc440 April 26, 2017 6:23 pm

            For me, it’s the opposite. I don’t mind u-go-i-go for skirmish games, but for massed battles, I think alternating is better.

          • AngryPanda April 27, 2017 1:50 pm

            Can’t argue with that. Perhaps I should have said that there’s a reason these sorts of activations have mostly replaced “You go, I go” and I prefer those systems.
            If they really wanted to go nuts they could have done something like use those so far magic and unknown command points to let you influence what activates then. As things are I can go do my laundry in the other players turn. Sometimes even if I’m an hours drive from home…

  12. fluger April 26, 2017 9:52 am #

    How hard is it to keep quiet about all this stuff!? I’d be bursting like an overcooked bratwurst.

    • HeavyPlate April 26, 2017 10:16 am #

      I think they people under NDA have done incredible cause we really didn’t know anything coming up to this. Commendable really.

      • fluger April 26, 2017 2:57 pm #

        For sure.

    • Threllen April 26, 2017 10:30 am #


      The threat of a lawsuit makes it real easy to keep quiet 😉

      Also I don’t think they’d be getting any more privileged information if they started leaking things…

      • HeavyPlate April 26, 2017 10:38 am #

        I mean exactly.
        But even so, some communities would not abide by them cause…well they’re stupid. lmao

        • David Alastair Hayden April 26, 2017 10:44 am #

          I imagine the first rule of NDAs is this: Only give them out to people you already trust. If you don’t trust someone, don’t give them info, NDA or not, unless absolutely necessary.

    • Reecius April 26, 2017 11:45 am #

      Haha, we’ve been holding our tongues for so long now, that this is not that bad…but the temptation to share the excitement is very real!

      • Jesse Sinclair April 26, 2017 12:22 pm #

        Not sure if you can answer this or not, but judging by three things:

        1.) No more templates.
        2.) The flamer specifically outlines that it auto hits but nothing else.
        3.) The flamer is type “Assault” not type “Flamer” (and they said that this edition places a huge emphasis on keywords).

        Do Flamer-style weapons no longer ignore Cover? I hope that’s true, my Nid hordes will be much happier!

        • Reecius April 26, 2017 12:43 pm #

          I cannot answer any specifics yet, sorry. I know everyone is dying to know but we just have to hang tight a while longer to see how things like cover and flamers work specifically.

          • fluger April 26, 2017 2:58 pm

            I’m so excited. Will you, at some point, be able to point at certain rules and say, “I had a hand in that.”

        • Anvil April 26, 2017 1:48 pm #

          I think when they mentioned the emphasis on Keywords, it’s more to do with Units and Models Keywords, for the purposes of special rules being more limited. For example, “All SPACE MARINES get +X to Y stat within Z inches of this model”. Kind of like what happens with AoS special rules.

      • Cephalobeard April 26, 2017 12:40 pm #

        I won’t tell. 😉

        I’m excited for when you guys get to spill all the beans. I wanna know the hot tips.

        • Reecius April 26, 2017 12:43 pm #

          We are also excited for that day! We have a lot to say, lol

          • Luke April 26, 2017 5:30 pm

            Look I mean we won’t tell anyone that it was you 😉

          • Reecius April 26, 2017 9:35 pm

            I cannot disclose any specific information at this time, sorry =) Soon, though!

      • fluger April 26, 2017 3:07 pm #

        I’m sure! I just have to say that I was pretty excited about 8th edition, but when they mentioned you, Frankie, and Mike Brandt by name on the webcast I nearly shouted for joy.

        I have very high opinion of your collective input in terms of playtesting and it makes me think this is going to be a dynamite edition.

        The game really needed a hard reset and a new focus on adaptability of rules. I’m glad we got both, but I knew GW REALLY needed to take a hard look at their balance issues which have, frankly, been hard-wired into 40k since Rogue Trader. The only way I could see that happening was getting tournament data and using it to inform points levels (remember my idea to have ITC track usage of units/items to change points levels?). FLG and NOVA are pretty clearly have their finger on the pulse of what’s going on so I’m glad they reached out (akin to when they reached out to the Adepticon folks for the 5th ed FAQ).

        Anyway. I’m super stoked about 8th Edition. Can’t wait! Thanks for all your hard work!

        • Reecius April 26, 2017 9:37 pm #

          Thanks for the vote of confidence, friend, means a lot! Once we’re given the go ahead to talk about the experience, we will be happy to.

  13. WrentheFaceless April 26, 2017 1:23 pm #

    The real question is, whats the weapon profile and mechanics of Grav?

  14. Anggul April 26, 2017 3:02 pm #

    I like how the profiles work. Damage is a far better system than all-or-nothing instant death.

    On the other hand, I don’t get why the damage of the lascannon needed to be so random. Anywhere between 1 and 6 seems way too unreliable, why not just set it at 3 or 4?

    I’m actually most excited to read ‘rapid fire 1’, it means there are rapid fire weapons with different rates of fire.

    • Sanchezsam2 April 26, 2017 5:23 pm #

      I think that’s the entire point of the lascannon. Whereas something like a multimelta would be d3+2.

    • Desc440 April 26, 2017 6:20 pm #

      I’ll betcha Hurricane Bolters will become Rapid Fire 3 weapons

      • Dakkath April 26, 2017 7:53 pm #

        Here’s hoping “Rapid Fire X” replaces salvo

    • abusepuppy April 26, 2017 7:37 pm #

      GW thinks random is fun. Ork and Chaos players (as well as anyone using a psyker) should be well aware of this.

      • Threllen April 27, 2017 5:40 am #

        Hey, at least you don’t have to roll on a D66 table to see what a lascannon does at least…

        • abusepuppy April 27, 2017 5:50 am #

          No, only a d6 table as it turns out.

          • Ytook April 27, 2017 6:28 am

            Rolling a d6 and using that number is a tricky business

  15. Kevin Lantz April 26, 2017 3:52 pm #

    I’m actually a bit sad to see that flamers are only 1d6, hopefully ones with torrent add a d6

    • fluger April 26, 2017 4:58 pm #

      I bet that it will just have longer range. Like 20″

      • abusepuppy April 27, 2017 5:55 am #

        That would make sense. It also opens up options for Heavy Flamers to be slightly longer in range and Hand Flamers to be slightly shorter, as was the case in some other versions of the game.

      • Threllen April 27, 2017 7:51 am #

        It could be both really. I could see flamers that were previously “torrent” getting an extra range and I could also see really potent flamers getting more than 1D6 hits.

  16. Sanchezsam2 April 26, 2017 5:31 pm #

    My biggest question is how do they handle artillery now before people added more crewmen for more ablative wounds. but let’s compare something like the basilisk artillery carriage to the chimera version. The chimera version is going to have way more wounds and toughness now the question is do more crewmen add more wounds to the carriage?

    • Desc440 April 26, 2017 6:19 pm #

      Maybe the gun itself will simply be ignored for in-game purposes? Kinda like how Eldar Guardian platforms don’t really have a profile…

      • abusepuppy April 26, 2017 7:39 pm #

        Guardian platforms absolutely have a profile- T5 W1 Sv3+.

        • Desc440 April 26, 2017 8:15 pm #

          Oops! You are right. Shows how often people use Guardian Defenders around here.

    • abusepuppy April 26, 2017 7:39 pm #

      Artillery has shifted radically in how it’s handled over the course of the game, so it’s really hard to say. It’s especially weird because there are only three artillery units in the game if you discount Forge World (who inevitably finds reason to make special unique exceptions for each of their units.) Having an entire unit type- with special rules and exceptions and counter-exceptions and corner cases- for three units seems like a bizarre waste of time and effort.

      • Sanchezsam2 April 27, 2017 3:16 am #

        I play krieg so ya artillery is a huge part of thier schtick. I also tend to use them w basic guard rules as well, but it would be good to know how FW/gw handle artillery vs chimera base platforms. I have high hopes things like hades drill may be cool again.

        • abusepuppy April 27, 2017 5:54 am #

          The problem isn’t that artillery exist as a concept- the problem is that it’s a really weird and unintuitive set of rules for a unit type that barely exists. Artillery rules have always been complicated and obtuse, and there’s no real call for them to be- why is a Rapier Destroyer an artillery weapon, but a Lascannon isn’t? The difference between the two is enormous (T7 vs T3) and the distinction wholly arbitrary.

  17. Lincroyable April 26, 2017 11:30 pm #

    So great that GW is reaching out to the community, super excited about this coming new edition. Big thanks to the FLG team for participating and working hard on making the game more enjoyable! It must be quite some experience and I am sure you guys will smartly make it valuable for your business, cause I think you guys deserve it.
    I have played Blood Angels exclusively since 4th edition, so yes I have a few red models (even the stormtalon and centurions even if they never came to the faction) mostly cause I love the fluff and the army color rendering on a tabletop. But in terms of playing I have been looking at Orks and Tyranids cause I’d like to play something with hordes, probably Orks due to the fluff as well. But of course starting a horde requires some hours and in 7th edition, these 2 factions are kind of guaranteed loss, not that I play for the win but it’s not really fun to get kicked however good or bad you play and also whatever list you bring on the table. So far it looks like these 2 factions are getting buffed. How much more competitive than in 7th would you say that they are getting?
    And do you feel that this coming edition will be more balanced towards all factions to the point that the space elves reign might end?

  18. Lincroyable April 26, 2017 11:36 pm #

    I guess with all the multiple wound models, keeping count of wounds per model will be the new thing, so how to do this better than with a set of dice staying next to each model? I think of these dreadnought armies or battle company with 10 vehicles that will have few of them remaining on 2-3 wounds… might get messy with so many dices laying around no?

    • Ytook April 27, 2017 6:55 am #

      I’m guessing wound allocation will work like AoS where the controlling player applies wounds as they wish but have to apply wounds to wounded models before others, so you only ever have one wounded model per unit.

Leave a Reply