ClockworkZion wrote: Moving on past Power levels, I am wondering if Assault Weapons will gain a gunslinger rule to balance them agaianst the buffs other weapon types have now.
That or bespoke rules let you shoot all weapons on certain models (keywords like Gravis, Stormsurge, Crisis).
Or as seems more likely - models can shoot with all their weapons at all times.
keltikhoa wrote: Assault Marines, or more specifically their jetpack, were bulky models correct? The distinct lack of bulky on the inceptors is interesting. Sideways Transport capacity buff?
In 5th-7th editions, what transport was allowed to carry assault marines with jump packs?
Honest question.
Stormravens, Storm Eagles, Thunderhawks, Stormbird, Caestus Assault Ram, Corvus Blackstar, Stormwolf (Or was it the Stormfang?). Necron Night Scythes were also able to carry JI. It was generally just flyers but notably the Stomraven was the first to specifically allow it.
Like Deadshot said for examples.
Bulky counts as 2 for capacity.
Very bulky counts as 4 for capacity.
Assault Marines were bulky, and the reason given for them being bulky was the jetpack.
Inceptors also have a jetpack but bulky or anything saying counts as two for Transport capacity is missing.
If a model that should have some sort of bulky or equivalent rule doesn't, will this also be true for other bulky/very bulky models?
Termies, MANZ, etc.
It is entirely possible they are restricted from using a transport but since there are some transports that could theoretically carry them it is at least a little curious.
Youn wrote: Heh, When I came up originally saying the incessors were 105 pts. People said that I was just making up numbers. Which is true based off an educated guess.
Marines are 13 points.
Primaris marines are +1 wound and +1 attack. Which I bet puts them at 20 points per model.
A jump pack on a character in 7th was +15 points. So, my guess was that they were 20 pts + 15 points = 35 points per model.
3 x 35pts = 105 pts. Assuming you discount the jump pack to make it Jump pack + Assault Bolter = +15 pts.
This leave the cost of Gravis armor on them. So.. yeah, I revise my cost to 40pts per model. Or 120pts for the squad.
That would be terribly undercosted if the marines as baseline are still roughly the same. These guys should be about 55 points per model.
And yeah, I would expect them to release the pamphlets (Primaris and DG) plus the 12 page rules this weekend. As there is no real way for them to keep those secret. Even if the store owners were threatened, there is no way all the stores that have demo boxes can prevent someone with a smart phone from taking pictures of the entire book this weekend.
skarsol wrote: So they keep saying there's no more USR's, but then the marines all have ATSKNF. Is that just the exception that proves the rule, or is there something I'm missing?
ATSKNF is an army rule, not a USR. It's a small, but important distinction.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving on past Power levels, I am wondering if Assault Weapons will gain a gunslinger rule to balance them agaianst the buffs other weapon types have now.
That or bespoke rules let you shoot all weapons on certain models (keywords like Gravis, Stormsurge, Crisis).
Or as seems more likely - models can shoot with all their weapons at all times.
That would make Marines and Sisters the champs of short range shooting if they could fire pistols and bolters at the same time..
And we all know Sisters can't anything nice, so this is likely not the case.
Each marine is armed with a boltgun and frag and krak grenades
Each Veteran Sargent is armed with a power sword and bolt pistol
One marine may replace his boltgun with a flamer, plasma gun, meltagun or grav-gun.
One marine per 10 may replace their boltgun with a Heavy bolter, Plasma Cannon, Lascannon, Multi-melta or Gravcannon.
Any marine may change out his boltgun for a chainsword and bolt pistol.
The Veteran Sargent may replace his bolt pistol with a hand flamer, plasma pistol or grav pistol.
The Veteran Sargent may replace his power sword with a power axe, power maul, or power fist.
The Veteran Sargent may take a melta bomb.
This would solve the boltgun plus bolt pistol issue.
Youn wrote: Do we know a tactical marine gets a bolt pistol.
I bet their dataslate says the following:
Each marine is armed with a boltgun and frag and krak grenades
Each Veteran Sargent is armed with a power sword and bolt pistol
One marine may replace his boltgun with a flamer, plasma gun, meltagun or grav-gun.
One marine per 10 may replace their boltgun with a Heavy bolter, Plasma Cannon, Lascannon, Multi-melta or Gravcannon.
Any marine may change out his boltgun for a chainsword and bolt pistol.
The Veteran Sargent may replace his bolt pistol with a hand flamer, plasma pistol or grav pistol.
The Veteran Sargent may replace his power sword with a power axe, power maul, or power fist.
The Veteran Sargent may take a melta bomb.
This would solve the boltgun plus bolt pistol issue.
Honestly its not really a big deal. in the scheme of things getting that extra shot is not game breaking.
As far as transports go, it was mentioned last week in the QnA that there will be limits on the types of models that can get in a transport, heavily implying that whilst Bulky and the like are gone the effects will remain.
Primaris Space Marines 2: Heretical Boogaloo Q: Nice new info Warhammer 40,000, but there is still one question: how would the primaris marines fit into the (more or less rigid) structure of a codex chapter? Will there be an additional company for the primaris? Or will they replace battle casualties in the existing companies? And what about the command structure (Primaris Captains and Command squads)?
A: All will be revealed! The Chapter structure has been looked at and these guys fit in... but we can't quite say how yet...
These have gotten shorter lately, even without me cutting out the "MY FACTION NEXT PLEASE" comments.
People keep going back and forth on this, as if the two are inconsistent. Maybe they're not? What if the way to reconcile it is that when they say that it does not account for wargear and upgrades, they're trying to say that it does not fluctuate based upon the number of wargear and upgrades you select, while the FB thing is saying "oh don't worry, we pegged the PL assuming you'd have take some ambiguous number of upgrades for that unit".
Pretty much exactly.
No, not exactly.
The same logic can be flipped on the Facebook guys to mean that they wanted you to know you can take anything and it doesn't change the assigned power level.
So, again, I ask - to which none have had a reply - which upgrade did they based the dreadnought power level upon? And the Rubrics?
So we should ignore all the Q&A info? No thanks, I think I'll use some logic and reasoning applied to both since when you do you realize that the two sources are not actually in conflict at all. Your just reading into it as if there is.
Ok, then answer my question above.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And let's apply a little Occam's Razor here folks.
Did they do the math for the base unit or did they calculate every possible combination and come up with an average?
If we assume points mean anything, we can assume the most expensive loadout would be the best if points were not an object. So it would be easy to give a squad all possible options and give them a power level based off that load out. No need for complex math for that, optimal load out in a points system is based off utility per point. If points don't matter then you could just go with the best options.
So say you have a chapter master - you might not always take artificer armor, a bike, a storm shield, a powerfist, and lightning claw, and combi-weapon, digital weapons, melta bombs, master craft stuff etc. Because you have to pay for it, but if you didn't why wouldn't you take all the options possible? The only time this matters is when options are binary, you can only have one or the other, in these cases if points are meaningful we can assume the more expensive option is better. I will admit this hasn't necessarily been true, but presumably that is the intent. Thus the most expensive option is the best, and the most expensive loadout for a squad is the best, and we can base power level off that load out. Then pull back on some units that are unlikely to ever be fully kitted out (say deathcompany with 2 thunderhammers, jumpacks etc.).
By your argument points are meaningless because GW has no idea what is or is not effective.
Interesting that there is no not that a roll of 6 always succeeds, this would indicate that a -1 to hit could make it impossible for some units to hit. In overwatch for example, if you can have a -1 to hit, no unit could hit you unless they have a buff to their overwatch roll. The same is true with save rolls, and wound rolls.
People keep going back and forth on this, as if the two are inconsistent. Maybe they're not? What if the way to reconcile it is that when they say that it does not account for wargear and upgrades, they're trying to say that it does not fluctuate based upon the number of wargear and upgrades you select, while the FB thing is saying "oh don't worry, we pegged the PL assuming you'd have take some ambiguous number of upgrades for that unit".
Pretty much exactly.
No, not exactly.
The same logic can be flipped on the Facebook guys to mean that they wanted you to know you can take anything and it doesn't change the assigned power level.
So, again, I ask - to which none have had a reply - which upgrade did they based the dreadnought power level upon? And the Rubrics?
So we should ignore all the Q&A info? No thanks, I think I'll use some logic and reasoning applied to both since when you do you realize that the two sources are not actually in conflict at all. Your just reading into it as if there is.
Ok, then answer my question above.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And let's apply a little Occam's Razor here folks.
Did they do the math for the base unit or did they calculate every possible combination and come up with an average?
I think GW Mather it or based on the maximum points value for the unit, or maybe an average of most points and least points?
It also helps that a lot of the weapons are more varied now, which dreadnought weapon would you say should cost the most points? If a grenade launcher is d6 strength 4 automatic hits now, is it really that much worse than a melta gun?
Either way some units in 40k, like IG vets, can double or even triple their points costs based on upgrades. If GW didn't account for this power levels are unbelievably unbalanced, they're the most unbalanced game mode GW has ever made including super formation 7th edition and unbound. The only thing less balanced is "bring what you have" complete free play.
You might say "yeah well that's why power levels are the worst thing GW could have done." but that really strikes me as having made up your mind and trying to find evidence to support your decision.
Well, they do have jet packs on their back and legs. I guess they could come from quite a distance away assuming they had enough air. Just need to point at a planet and push off the hull of the space ship. Given enough air you will enter the atmosphere or burn up on the way in.
mortal wounds spill to other models that's wildthree (3)
I hope they specifically address batch rolling and rolling saves before allocation in units with identical armor saves. Otherwise this set up takes longer and is more complicated than needs be.
This is glorious. Look out sir is dead! DIE DIE DIE
That was the worst rule at the LVO. All kinds of stupid gamesmanship rolling 1 die at a time to flip over some wounds onto some sponge thing. It was [MOD EDIT - Please find a different way to express that thought. - Alpharius]
I hope they specifically address batch rolling and rolling saves before allocation in units with identical armor saves. Otherwise this set up takes longer and is more complicated than needs be.
They did. If you read that they allocate wounds then roll saves then inflict damage.
So, in my example before were you received 1,1,2,3 damage on your primaris marines. It was done incorrectly.
You would do as follows;
1) Roll 12 to hits 9 hit.
2) Roll 9 wound rolls 4 actually wound
3) Allocate out 4 wounds starting at a single target.
4) Roll 4 saves
5) Roll damage 1,1,2,3 (Note in this case you cannot multi-roll this, you have to roll these individually removing a model once it dies)
The only way to speed up phase 5 is to roll 4 separately colored dice and say white, red, blue, green are my order of damage inflicted.
Wulfey wrote: This is glorious. Look out sir is dead! DIE DIE DIE
That was the worst rule at the LVO. All kinds of stupid gamesmanship rolling 1 die at a time to flip over some wounds onto some sponge thing. It was total
How is this an LVO issue?
Look out sirs had to be made for each wound.
I agree that it was a bad rule and I hope it's gone. Remember that we haven't seen character rules, yet. Look Out Sir might be there, but I doubt it. They've said you can't target characters if there is an intervening model.
I hope they specifically address batch rolling and rolling saves before allocation in units with identical armor saves. Otherwise this set up takes longer and is more complicated than needs be.
They did. If you read that they allocate wounds then roll saves then inflict damage.
So, in my example before were you received 1,1,2,3 damage on your primaris marines. It was done incorrectly.
You would do as follows;
1) Roll 12 to hits 9 hit.
2) Roll 9 wound rolls 4 actually wound
3) Allocate out 4 wounds starting at a single target.
4) Roll 4 saves
5) Roll damage 1,1,2,3 (Note in this case you cannot multi-roll this, you have to roll these individually removing a model once it dies)
The only way to speed up phase 5 is to roll 4 separately colored dice and say white, red, blue, green are my order of damage inflicted.
That's the way you speed it up, but actually the rules are different.
1) Roll 1 attack to hit, if hit go to 2.
2) Roll 1 wound, if succesful go to 3
3) Allocate the wound
4) Roll save, if failed go to 5
5) Roll damage and eventually remove the model
6) Select another attack and go back to 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post: LOS like rules will be plenty, but will use the AoS formula.
"Roll if the char suffers damage. If succesful take an equal amount of mortal wounds and the char receives no damage"
So you always save on the character and the LOS is used as a FnP roll.
I was looking at how to correctly multi-roll those instead of doing each individual attack separately. Since, noone wants to go through a 150 man IG army rolling 1 man at a time.
That's the way you speed it up, but actually the rules are different.
1) Roll 1 attack to hit, if hit go to 2.
2) Roll 1 wound, if succesful go to 3
3) Allocate the wound
4) Roll save, if failed go to 5
5) Roll damage and eventually remove the model
6) Select another attack and go back to 1.
1) Roll 1 attack to hit, if hit go to 2.
2) Roll 1 wound, if succesful go to 3
3) Allocate the wound
4) Roll save, if failed go to 5
5) Roll damage and go to 6
6) If model has the new Damage Save (aka new FNP), Roll save for each damage. Go to 7
7) Apply all non-saved Damage to model. If damage >= models's wounds, remove model. Go to 8.
8) Select another attack and go back to 1
Youn wrote: I was looking at how to correctly multi-roll those instead of doing each individual attack separately. Since, noone wants to go through a 150 man IG army rolling 1 man at a time.
The problem *only* applies to multi-wound models being hit by multi-wound weapons.
Youn wrote: I was looking at how to correctly multi-roll those instead of doing each individual attack separately. Since, noone wants to go through a 150 man IG army rolling 1 man at a time.
The problem *only* applies to multi-wound models being hit by multi-wound weapons.
Well...this is not helpful. It does not solve the lascannon conundrum.
You obviously roll the damage after the save has been failed. I see no problem here.
Well, yes, but I would have preferred a batch rolling solution.
To be honest, you can probably batch roll with different colored dice. It's not like it'll take -that- long to roll multiple damage in most situations. Most multi-damage weapons we've seen don't have high shot outputs.
To be honest, you can probably batch roll with different colored dice. It's not like it'll take -that- long to roll multiple damage in most situations. Most multi-damage weapons we've seen don't have high shot outputs.
Yes, but the order in which they are applied matters quite a bit.
I don't expect it to be a huge issue, but there will likely be some scenarios where it could be really slow.
Yes, you can allocate and roll different colored dice.
I have 5 marines 1 is a sergeant, 1 has a plasma gun, they take 8 bolter wounds, I allocate 6 to regular guys and one each to plasma and Sergeant and roll 6 black dice, one red and one white.
It's not a deal breaker.
But I would have preferred it to read: "if all members of a unit have the same armor save, then roll saves before allocating wounds."
In that scenario, I'd just pick up the 8 dice and roll, then remove models equal to the failed saves. Much cleaner, imo.
Like I said, it's not the end of the world, but it's more complicated and time consuming than it needs to be.
Indeed in some situations it could take a long time.
I expect high rof high damage weapons to have fixed damage stat, but the fact that the HYMP are damage d3 does not bode well.
To be honest, you can probably batch roll with different colored dice. It's not like it'll take -that- long to roll multiple damage in most situations. Most multi-damage weapons we've seen don't have high shot outputs.
Yes, but the order in which they are applied matters quite a bit.
I don't expect it to be a huge issue, but there will likely be some scenarios where it could be really slow.
It doesn't really matter. Damage caused by wounds don't carry over.
What matters is the rules for wound allocation, not damage allocation.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: They usually put the guidelines for batch rolling at the end of the section, but they might have cut it out this time around.
I could see it being a day one FAQ sort of thing if people have issues with it before launch (since there are demo games starting on the 3rd).
I would expect a hole in the rules that causes extra dice rolling to resolve attacks would have been caught by the tournament player playtesters. I'm comfortable assuming this is addressed in the full rules.
That's the way you speed it up, but actually the rules are different.
1) Roll 1 attack to hit, if hit go to 2.
2) Roll 1 wound, if succesful go to 3
3) Allocate the wound
4) Roll save, if failed go to 5
5) Roll damage and eventually remove the model
6) Select another attack and go back to 1.
1) Roll 1 attack to hit, if hit go to 2.
2) Roll 1 wound, if succesful go to 3
3) Allocate the wound
4) Roll save, if failed go to 5
5) Roll damage and go to 6
6) If model has the new Damage Save (aka new FNP), Roll save for each damage. Go to 7
7) Apply all non-saved Damage to model. If damage >= models's wounds, remove model. Go to 8.
8) Select another attack and go back to 1
You can always group weapons at the firing stage it's only at wound allocation do you need to split them.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: They usually put the guidelines for batch rolling at the end of the section, but they might have cut it out this time around.
I could see it being a day one FAQ sort of thing if people have issues with it before launch (since there are demo games starting on the 3rd).
I would expect a hole in the rules that causes extra dice rolling to resolve attacks would have been caught by the tournament player playtesters. I'm comfortable assuming this is addressed in the full rules.
Quite possibly.
That said, I still expect there to be a day one FAQ for stuff people don't get.
The army that is going to need to use many colored dice is the Greyknights. As each one carries a force weapon that does d3 damage. So, any time you face Primaris or Terminators. Your going to run into this rule.
I am going to hunt down a set of 6 sided dice that are Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. That way I can just declare my order as ROYGBIV.
So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
I'm sure we'll get acclimated to the new system of To Hit, Wound, Save, Damage and be able to figure out batch rolling, but there's no doubt that it will be more involved and take longer to do than the current system - which is a shame in my opinion.
I believe they could have moved to this new system, but kept it fast by removing player choice from the equation. By keeping the 'remove casualties from the front' mechanic you don't have to fuss around with deciding who takes the wound/damage and then making sure to roll for special models separately. It would then also have eliminated the bullgak of special models always being the last ones removed and kept movement/positioning relevant.
That's the way you speed it up, but actually the rules are different.
1) Roll 1 attack to hit, if hit go to 2.
2) Roll 1 wound, if succesful go to 3
3) Allocate the wound
4) Roll save, if failed go to 5
5) Roll damage and eventually remove the model
6) Select another attack and go back to 1.
1) Roll 1 attack to hit, if hit go to 2.
2) Roll 1 wound, if succesful go to 3
3) Allocate the wound
4) Roll save, if failed go to 5
5) Roll damage and go to 6
6) If model has the new Damage Save (aka new FNP), Roll save for each damage. Go to 7
7) Apply all non-saved Damage to model. If damage >= models's wounds, remove model. Go to 8.
8) Select another attack and go back to 1
You can always group weapons at the firing stage it's only at wound allocation do you need to split them.
Almost true, but a really WAAC player will make you roll one by one since it can alter the result.
Example: I shoot at an ork squad. We can expect that the Nob will have 2 or more wounds. If i know the number of total wounds inflicted, i can assign the last wound to the nob and lose one less ork. If i have to allocate one by one, i can't be sure when is the time to allocate the wound to that Nob.
Youn wrote: The army that is going to need to use many colored dice is the Greyknights. As each one carries a force weapon that does d3 damage. So, any time you face Primaris or Terminators. Your going to run into this rule.
I am going to hunt down a set of 6 sided dice that are Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. That way I can just declare my order as ROYGBIV.
You can almost never batch roll saves and damage from multi-damage weapons to multi wound models, because wounds have to be allocated to damaged models first. So if you have a unit of 5 terminators, but one has suffered a wound, you can't allocate your 4 wounds to 4 different models and roll a different colored dice for each. You have to roll one save, then if it's failed apply damage to the wounded model, etc.
But that will probably be a corner case and I can live with it.
@docdoom77: The wounds are fine if the unit all has the same armor. Which should be common. Since, you kill off a model then move to the next model. I am actually applying 4 wounds to the unit. Not to a single model. You have to keep applying the same wound to a model if it's already wounded but not dead. It's the application of damage that applies after the fact.
So, if I say you have 4 wounds and fail 4 saves. I then roll my damage which I must tell you in correct order so, 1,4,2,1 means you pick a model that failed. Apply 1 damage, then 4 damage and kill it. Then pick a second model and apply 2 damage killing it, then pick a third model and apply 1 wound to it. I don't get any say in which one you are picking. So, feel free to pick your generic guys before you special or heavy weapons.
To be honest, you can probably batch roll with different colored dice. It's not like it'll take -that- long to roll multiple damage in most situations. Most multi-damage weapons we've seen don't have high shot outputs.
Yes, but the order in which they are applied matters quite a bit.
I don't expect it to be a huge issue, but there will likely be some scenarios where it could be really slow.
It doesn't really matter. Damage caused by wounds don't carry over.
What matters is the rules for wound allocation, not damage allocation.
I know - that's the problem
If you have a 3W model with 2 wounds left then by RAW you can't assign any wounds to anyone else. So you have to assign one wound, roll the save, and roll the damage. If the damage doesn't kill the model then you assign the next wound to the same model, roll the save, and roll the damage.
And so on.
You *can't* assign all the wounds, roll all the saves, and roll the damage as different colored dice.
oni wrote: I'm sure we'll get acclimated to the new system of To Hit, Wound, Save, Damage and be able to figure out batch rolling, but there's no doubt that it will be more involved and take longer to do than the current system - which is a shame in my opinion.
I believe they could have moved to this new system, but kept it fast by removing player choice from the equation. By keeping the 'remove casualties from the front' mechanic you don't have to fuss around with deciding who takes the wound/damage and then making sure to roll for special models separately. It would then also have eliminated the bullgak of special models always being the last ones removed and kept movement/positioning relevant.
A missed opportunity for a great system IMO.
Casualties from the front?
Removing that abomination was one of the best things to ever happen in 40K.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
And that's why you will roll those lasguns one by one. Once one wound goes through, here comes an high AP weapon to finish it off.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
And that's why you will roll those lasguns one by one. Once one wound goes through, here comes an high AP weapon to finish it off.
If somebody tried to roll their lasguns one by one, it would be the LAST time I played that person. roll them all, roll saves, allocate to the wounded model first and THEN roll the lascannon.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
Unless the model is wounded - then they have no choice. I'll be curious to see if you can have a mixed storm shield unit though. I'm doubtful that it will exist - or stormshields will be different.
Also - shoot only the lascannons at the termies and the lasguns at something else.
That's the way you speed it up, but actually the rules are different.
1) Roll 1 attack to hit, if hit go to 2.
2) Roll 1 wound, if succesful go to 3
3) Allocate the wound
4) Roll save, if failed go to 5
5) Roll damage and eventually remove the model
6) Select another attack and go back to 1.
1) Roll 1 attack to hit, if hit go to 2.
2) Roll 1 wound, if succesful go to 3
3) Allocate the wound
4) Roll save, if failed go to 5
5) Roll damage and go to 6
6) If model has the new Damage Save (aka new FNP), Roll save for each damage. Go to 7
7) Apply all non-saved Damage to model. If damage >= models's wounds, remove model. Go to 8.
8) Select another attack and go back to 1
You can always group weapons at the firing stage it's only at wound allocation do you need to split them.
Almost true, but a really WAAC player will make you roll one by one since it can alter the result.
Example: I shoot at an ork squad. We can expect that the Nob will have 2 or more wounds. If i know the number of total wounds inflicted, i can assign the last wound to the nob and lose one less ork. If i have to allocate one by one, i can't be sure when is the time to allocate the wound to that Nob.
This only helps if you know they will not be shot at again. According to the rules if you put a wound on the Nob then the next time that unit takes wounds the Nob must take wounds until he dies. "If a model in the target unit has lost any wounds the damage must be allocated to that model." So Assigning a wound to the Nob marks him as the next casualty in the unit whenever that happens, so assuming you don't want him to die until the end you cannot put a single wound on him.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
Thankfully, no. They said that once a model is wounded, you must continue to allocate wounds to it. Defenders pick who gets wounded initially, but whoever takes the first wound has to take the rest until he's dead.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
Thankfully, no. They said that once a model is wounded, you must continue to allocate wounds to it. Defenders pick who gets wounded initially, but whoever takes the first wound has to take the rest until he's dead.
Perhaps allocation will be a minimum of up to the remaining wounds the model has left?
Curious how that works when multiple models are wounded. Do you start with the least number of remaining wounds and work your way up?
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
Thankfully, no. They said that once a model is wounded, you must continue to allocate wounds to it. Defenders pick who gets wounded initially, but whoever takes the first wound has to take the rest until he's dead.
True, but I'm not going to waste my time with you rolling one lasgun shot at a time trying to create this situation... And I have a strong feeling I'm not alone on this.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
Thankfully, no. They said that once a model is wounded, you must continue to allocate wounds to it. Defenders pick who gets wounded initially, but whoever takes the first wound has to take the rest until he's dead.
Perhaps allocation will be a minimum of up to the remaining wounds the model has left?
Curious how that works when multiple models are wounded. Do you start with the least number of remaining wounds and work your way up?
How would multiple models ever be wounded simultaneously? If you always have to assign wounds to wounded models then they always die before the next guy takes any wounds, this really cuts down on wound counters needed for multiple wound units.
I honestly think allocation should come after the failed saves. It just makes more sense. I mean why didn't they just follow the same rules as AoS in this aspect.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: There shouldn't be a situation where multiple models are wounded.
Wounds are allocated before taking saves, so the first time a unit takes saves it's theoretically possible for multiple models to be injured at the same time.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
Thankfully, no. They said that once a model is wounded, you must continue to allocate wounds to it. Defenders pick who gets wounded initially, but whoever takes the first wound has to take the rest until he's dead.
True, but I'm not going to waste my time with you rolling one lasgun shot at a time trying to create this situation... And I have a strong feeling I'm not alone on this.
Why would you roll one lasgun at a time? If the unit has all the same save, you roll all saves, allocate wounds, pick up dead models.
People seem to be overly complicating it, you take your hits, roll to wound, roll your saves assuming they're all the same, the wounded guy takes the hits until he dies or the defender picks 1 dude to take the hits until dies. Repeat until out of wounds.
Super simple, need to drop the 7th or even 5th mindset, this is far closer 3rd ed really.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
Thankfully, no. They said that once a model is wounded, you must continue to allocate wounds to it. Defenders pick who gets wounded initially, but whoever takes the first wound has to take the rest until he's dead.
True, but I'm not going to waste my time with you rolling one lasgun shot at a time trying to create this situation... And I have a strong feeling I'm not alone on this.
Why would you roll one lasgun at a time? If the unit has all the same save, you roll all saves, allocate wounds, pick up dead models.
Wounds allocate first, saves come after. I presume this is so mixed save units can take their saves properly.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: There shouldn't be a situation where multiple models are wounded.
Wounds are allocated before taking saves, so the first time a unit takes saves it's theoretically possible for multiple models to be injured at the same time.
They are technically allocated one at a time, so you could never assign them to multiple models simultaneously. So you would allocate 1 wound, take the save, if model takes a wound he must take the next save otherwise it can go on a different model. To speed this up for multiple models with the same save you would roll saves then allocate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It also specifies that the rules we see are for making attacks one at a time. There may be different rules for making multiple attacks at once. I assume there is likely a speed rolling for multiple attacks section that follows.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: There shouldn't be a situation where multiple models are wounded.
Wounds are allocated before taking saves, so the first time a unit takes saves it's theoretically possible for multiple models to be injured at the same time.
They are technically allocated one at a time, so you could never assign them to multiple models simultaneously. So you would allocate 1 wound, take the save, if model takes a wound he must take the next save otherwise it can go on a different model. To speed this up for multiple models with the same save you would roll saves then allocate.
That sounds rather complicated and slowed. Multi-wound model units would be a PITA to play quickly in this method.
RamblingCompanyGaming wrote: I honestly think allocation should come after the failed saves. It just makes more sense. I mean why didn't they just follow the same rules as AoS in this aspect.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: There shouldn't be a situation where multiple models are wounded.
Wounds are allocated before taking saves, so the first time a unit takes saves it's theoretically possible for multiple models to be injured at the same time.
They are technically allocated one at a time, so you could never assign them to multiple models simultaneously. So you would allocate 1 wound, take the save, if model takes a wound he must take the next save otherwise it can go on a different model. To speed this up for multiple models with the same save you would roll saves then allocate.
That sounds rather complicated and slowed. Multi-wound model units would be a PITA to play quickly in this method.
Yes, but the rules quoted are for making attacks one at a time. The speed up rules might be (for multiple attacks at the same time), roll to hit, roll to wound, take saves (if the same), allocate wounds, roll for damage. Which you would use for all circumstances without mixed saves, which are most units.
*Googles high orbit distance*
Marketing blurb brain fart aside, the Inceptors sound like a lot of fun. I wonder what other bolt-on parts MK-X will have? So far the Primaris squads have not been direct replacements of any existing Marine units.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: There shouldn't be a situation where multiple models are wounded.
Wounds are allocated before taking saves, so the first time a unit takes saves it's theoretically possible for multiple models to be injured at the same time.
They are technically allocated one at a time, so you could never assign them to multiple models simultaneously. So you would allocate 1 wound, take the save, if model takes a wound he must take the next save otherwise it can go on a different model. To speed this up for multiple models with the same save you would roll saves then allocate.
That sounds rather complicated and slowed. Multi-wound model units would be a PITA to play quickly in this method.
Yes, but the rules quoted are for making attacks one at a time. The speed up rules might be (for multiple attacks at the same time), roll to hit, roll to wound, take saves (if the same), allocate wounds, roll for damage. Which you would use for all circumstances without mixed saves, which are most units.
Wounds are allocated first in the chart, so I don't know why people keep trying to swap that around.
That said single wound models can easily follow the chart as presented, it's only slowed when dealing with multi-wound models and needing to kill a single model before moving on to the next.
Say you have 3 lascannon hits and 4 bolter hits that have wounded and saves have been failed. You would allocate the successful wounding hits depending on what's best as the defender. For example, a unit of 5 Ork Nobs with 3 wounds each. You would resolve the bolter wounds first dealing 3 damage to a healthy Nob killing it then one damage to a second healthy Nob. You then assign one lascannon hit against the now damaged Nob. Roll for damage. If you roll a 1 the lucky Nob lives to soak the next hit, otherwise he alone is removed (2-6 damage doesn't matter as 2 will kill him). It then goes from 2 total dead Nobs to 5 dead Nobs depending on die rolls. This is one example and it will speed up once everyone plays it a few times.
Dudeface wrote: People seem to be overly complicating it, you take your hits, roll to wound, roll your saves assuming they're all the same, the wounded guy takes the hits until he dies or the defender picks 1 dude to take the hits until dies. Repeat until out of wounds.
Super simple, need to drop the 7th or even 5th mindset, this is far closer 3rd ed really.
*Googles high orbit distance*
Marketing blurb brain fart aside, the Inceptors sound like a lot of fun. I wonder what other bolt-on parts MK-X will have? So far the Primaris squads have not been direct replacements of any existing Marine units.
Hmmm..... while maybe not a direct replacement...two things;
1 - Why would you take assault marines over the new "tau suit-marines". They are incredibly mobile, dish out amazing damage, and have six wounds a unit.
Maybe if you are expecting lots of incoming low ap damage? not sure. Of course, obviously there could be something I am missing here.
2 - Its not just about taking them as replacements - every unit you take is less points for something else.
if after vehicles, flyers, etc. you only have X points for infantry - why not take the better units?
and this is even before we get the primaris dreads....
MasterSlowPoke wrote: There shouldn't be a situation where multiple models are wounded.
Wounds are allocated before taking saves, so the first time a unit takes saves it's theoretically possible for multiple models to be injured at the same time.
They are technically allocated one at a time, so you could never assign them to multiple models simultaneously. So you would allocate 1 wound, take the save, if model takes a wound he must take the next save otherwise it can go on a different model. To speed this up for multiple models with the same save you would roll saves then allocate.
That sounds rather complicated and slowed. Multi-wound model units would be a PITA to play quickly in this method.
Yes, but the rules quoted are for making attacks one at a time. The speed up rules might be (for multiple attacks at the same time), roll to hit, roll to wound, take saves (if the same), allocate wounds, roll for damage. Which you would use for all circumstances without mixed saves, which are most units.
Wounds are allocated first in the chart, so I don't know why people keep trying to swap that around.
That said single wound models can easily follow the chart as presented, it's only slowed when dealing with multi-wound models and needing to kill a single model before moving on to the next.
Because we don't know if it is swapped around for making multiple attack rolls at once. Look at the first paragraph under resolve attacks it states that the rules shown are for resolving single attacks, and not for rolling multiple attacks at the same time. IN this case it is irrelevant what order you do things in as allocate then save is no different than save then allocate other than that you know whether or not you will fail the save prior to allocation, but unless you are putting it on valuable models first this makes no difference.
Dudeface wrote: People seem to be overly complicating it, you take your hits, roll to wound, roll your saves assuming they're all the same, the wounded guy takes the hits until he dies or the defender picks 1 dude to take the hits until dies. Repeat until out of wounds.
Super simple, need to drop the 7th or even 5th mindset, this is far closer 3rd ed really.
*Googles high orbit distance* Marketing blurb brain fart aside, the Inceptors sound like a lot of fun. I wonder what other bolt-on parts MK-X will have? So far the Primaris squads have not been direct replacements of any existing Marine units.
They are just trying to make it sound impressive. For example: In the Real world Navy Seals have dropped off shore 12 miles and swam in. There is zero real world reason to drop guys out 12 miles on a country you are invading (Panama) in this case. So, kicking the Inceptors out 22 miles away from an Earth sized planet and making them rocket/free fall toward the planet is impressive but not very practical. Granted the large ships of the Imperium might have issue if they actually came closer to the planet.
[MOD EDIT - Please do NOT quote a huge block of text just to simply add a single sentence reply. - Alpharius]
It doesn't say in the allocation section that the wounds have to be split equally you just have to say where the wounds will start and it has to start with wounded models.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
Unless the model is wounded - then they have no choice. I'll be curious to see if you can have a mixed storm shield unit though. I'm doubtful that it will exist - or stormshields will be different.
Also - shoot only the lascannons at the termies and the lasguns at something else.
Unless they invalidate people's existing units mixed units exists. Lots ofunits could have variable amount
Unless they invalidate people's existing units mixed units exists. Lots ofunits could have variable amount
Name a unit with Mixed models where the save is different and it's not because a character model has been added.
Note: All characters are now their own units.
I can think of Saint Celestine, Techmarine with Servitors and Inquisitor with Henchmen. In all of those cases, I am betting the dataslate has something special written on it.
Even more reason for me to hope Imperial Fists tactics boost bolt weapons. That Inceptors Squad is pretty awesome. The fact they lack a melee weapon is made up for by their Mortal wound ability. Pretty awesome. I hope Jump Pack Marines all have Fly. Death Company would love that.
Brotherjanus wrote: Say you have 3 lascannon hits and 4 bolter hits that have wounded and saves have been failed. You would allocate the successful wounding hits depending on what's best as the defender. For example, a unit of 5 Ork Nobs with 3 wounds each. You would resolve the bolter wounds first dealing 3 damage to a healthy Nob killing it then one damage to a second healthy Nob. You then assign one lascannon hit against the now damaged Nob. Roll for damage. If you roll a 1 the lucky Nob lives to soak the next hit, otherwise he alone is removed (2-6 damage doesn't matter as 2 will kill him). It then goes from 2 total dead Nobs to 5 dead Nobs depending on die rolls. This is one example and it will speed up once everyone plays it a few times.
For defender wouldnt best be bolter, bolter, lascannon, bolter, lc, lc?
MasterSlowPoke wrote: There shouldn't be a situation where multiple models are wounded.
Wounds are allocated before taking saves, so the first time a unit takes saves it's theoretically possible for multiple models to be injured at the same time.
They are technically allocated one at a time, so you could never assign them to multiple models simultaneously. So you would allocate 1 wound, take the save, if model takes a wound he must take the next save otherwise it can go on a different model. To speed this up for multiple models with the same save you would roll saves then allocate.
That sounds rather complicated and slowed. Multi-wound model units would be a PITA to play quickly in this method.
Yes, but the rules quoted are for making attacks one at a time. The speed up rules might be (for multiple attacks at the same time), roll to hit, roll to wound, take saves (if the same), allocate wounds, roll for damage. Which you would use for all circumstances without mixed saves, which are most units.
Wounds are allocated first in the chart, so I don't know why people keep trying to swap that around.
That said single wound models can easily follow the chart as presented, it's only slowed when dealing with multi-wound models and needing to kill a single model before moving on to the next.
Because we don't know if it is swapped around for making multiple attack rolls at once. Look at the first paragraph under resolve attacks it states that the rules shown are for resolving single attacks, and not for rolling multiple attacks at the same time. IN this case it is irrelevant what order you do things in as allocate then save is no different than save then allocate other than that you know whether or not you will fail the save prior to allocation, but unless you are putting it on valuable models first this makes no difference.
Good call! I didn't catch that. It does specifically say that this is the process for resolving one attack at a time which implies there could be a different process for batches of attacks.
Only one off the top of my head is a Boyz squad where the Nob can take 'Eavy Armor by himself. I think Broodlords have a different save as well, but they'll probably be taken out the squad and made a Character.
You also have Artificer Armor for all the 30k Tac Squads.
Unless they invalidate people's existing units mixed units exists. Lots ofunits could have variable amount
Name a unit with Mixed models where the save is different and it's not because a character model has been added.
Note: All characters are now their own units.
I can think of Saint Celestine, Techmarine with Servitors and Inquisitor with Henchmen. In all of those cases, I am betting the dataslate has something special written on it.
30k is the only thing that comes to mind personally. There your Sergeants can wear Artificer Armour.
Brotherjanus wrote: Say you have 3 lascannon hits and 4 bolter hits that have wounded and saves have been failed. You would allocate the successful wounding hits depending on what's best as the defender. For example, a unit of 5 Ork Nobs with 3 wounds each. You would resolve the bolter wounds first dealing 3 damage to a healthy Nob killing it then one damage to a second healthy Nob. You then assign one lascannon hit against the now damaged Nob. Roll for damage. If you roll a 1 the lucky Nob lives to soak the next hit, otherwise he alone is removed (2-6 damage doesn't matter as 2 will kill him). It then goes from 2 total dead Nobs to 5 dead Nobs depending on die rolls. This is one example and it will speed up once everyone plays it a few times.
For defender wouldnt best be bolter, bolter, lascannon, bolter, lc, lc?
If the rules allow it and you wanted to be a cheesy nob then you take bolter hits until you have just one wound left then take a lascannon hit.
I'm sure they'll have stuff governing different weapons and fast rolling in the side bar that we can't see yet.
Unless they invalidate people's existing units mixed units exists. Lots ofunits could have variable amount
Name a unit with Mixed models where the save is different and it's not because a character model has been added.
Note: All characters are now their own units.
I can think of Saint Celestine, Techmarine with Servitors and Inquisitor with Henchmen. In all of those cases, I am betting the dataslate has something special written on it.
Yes this. There should be no more mixed save units in the game. All saves can be taken at once from a single wound pool since defender can pick who dies, even out of line of sight and range.
RegulusBlack wrote: So If I understand correctly (because I’m technically rolling each of these attacks 1 at a time)
-I can batch roll my LasCannons separately from my Lasguns and make the opponent save per model on LasCannons first, followed by Lasguns for maximum effect. i.e. (Lasgun wound does not get eaten up by 2W model before LasCannon finishes him)
This makes sense from a different save/toughness unit (terminator with shield vs. rest of squad without)
I like it, removes shenanigans, and makes it more streamlined
Quite the opposite actually. We're back to 5th edition wound allocation shenanigans. Your opponent will get to allocate the wounds. So it's likely that they'll choose for any Lasgun wounds to go onto normal 2+/5++ Terminators and then place the Lascannon wounds on the 2+/3++ Terminators and vice versa. No matter which shots you chose to do first the opponent can choose the opposite models for allocation.
Unless the model is wounded - then they have no choice. I'll be curious to see if you can have a mixed storm shield unit though. I'm doubtful that it will exist - or stormshields will be different.
Also - shoot only the lascannons at the termies and the lasguns at something else.
Unless they invalidate people's existing units mixed units exists. Lots ofunits could have variable amount
Lots of units have mixed saves? I cannot think of very many really. Especially if characters/ICs are separate units. The biggest thing will be invulnerable saves, this also requires them to be multi-wound to really matter.
Dark Eldar Beast Pack
Deathwatch/Wolfguard
Can a nob take heavy armor if his squad doesn't?
DE command squad
That is literally all I can think of for units that have mixed saves other than the odd invul here or there (storm/combat shields on characters, Thunderwolves)
Most other mixed save units seem to have been multiple ICs that I can recall.
Unless they invalidate people's existing units mixed units exists. Lots ofunits could have variable amount
Name a unit with Mixed models where the save is different and it's not because a character model has been added.
Note: All characters are now their own units.
I can think of Saint Celestine, Techmarine with Servitors and Inquisitor with Henchmen. In all of those cases, I am betting the dataslate has something special written on it.
Inquisitors are ICs and will get shunted from the Henchmen Squads.
Techmarines will likely end up projecting a Mind Lock bubble and become separate characters as well.
davethepak wrote: Hmmm..... while maybe not a direct replacement...two things;
1 - Why would you take assault marines over the new "tau suit-marines". They are incredibly mobile, dish out amazing damage, and have six wounds a unit.
Maybe if you are expecting lots of incoming low ap damage? not sure. Of course, obviously there could be something I am missing here.
2 - Its not just about taking them as replacements - every unit you take is less points for something else.
if after vehicles, flyers, etc. you only have X points for infantry - why not take the better units?
and this is even before we get the primaris dreads....
Figuring out the pros and cons of taking Primaris vs taking existing units is something I'm looking forward to and dreading at the same time . Hopefully once we have all the game and army rules there wont be an obvious choice one way or the other.
Unless they invalidate people's existing units mixed units exists. Lots ofunits could have variable amount
Name a unit with Mixed models where the save is different and it's not because a character model has been added.
Note: All characters are now their own units.
I can think of Saint Celestine, Techmarine with Servitors and Inquisitor with Henchmen. In all of those cases, I am betting the dataslate has something special written on it.
Inquisitors are ICs and will get shunted from the Henchmen Squads.
Techmarines will likely end up projecting a Mind Lock bubble and become separate characters as well.
Techmarines are already ICs they don't need to join their servitors, Celestine will likely be separate from her retinue as well.
davethepak wrote: Hmmm..... while maybe not a direct replacement...two things;
1 - Why would you take assault marines over the new "tau suit-marines". They are incredibly mobile, dish out amazing damage, and have six wounds a unit.
Maybe if you are expecting lots of incoming low ap damage? not sure. Of course, obviously there could be something I am missing here.
2 - Its not just about taking them as replacements - every unit you take is less points for something else.
if after vehicles, flyers, etc. you only have X points for infantry - why not take the better units?
and this is even before we get the primaris dreads....
Figuring out the pros and cons of taking Primaris vs taking existing units is something I'm looking forward to and dreading at the same time . Hopefully once we have all the game and army rules there wont be an obvious choice one way or the other.
Until the Primaris get actual kits the biggest con is a limited unit size and no wargear options.
Unless they invalidate people's existing units mixed units exists. Lots ofunits could have variable amount
Name a unit with Mixed models where the save is different and it's not because a character model has been added.
Note: All characters are now their own units.
I can think of Saint Celestine, Techmarine with Servitors and Inquisitor with Henchmen. In all of those cases, I am betting the dataslate has something special written on it.
Inquisitors are ICs and will get shunted from the Henchmen Squads.
Techmarines will likely end up projecting a Mind Lock bubble and become separate characters as well.
Techmarines are already ICs they don't need to join their servitors, Celestine will likely be separate from her retinue as well.
I can actually see Celestine staying with her retinue as they're bought as a single unit and she already can't join units in that form.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: Only one off the top of my head is a Boyz squad where the Nob can take 'Eavy Armor by himself. I think Broodlords have a different save as well, but they'll probably be taken out the squad and made a Character.
You also have Artificer Armor for all the 30k Tac Squads.
This edition will seriously weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. I guess you could put her closest from unit in a hope that your opponent fires at her vs the unit she is next to.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: Only one off the top of my head is a Boyz squad where the Nob can take 'Eavy Armor by himself. I think Broodlords have a different save as well, but they'll probably be taken out the squad and made a Character.
You also have Artificer Armor for all the 30k Tac Squads.
Various terminators, thundeiwolves, wolfen...
All these examples involve storm shields which we don't have rules for, so might be worth holding off on that assumption
Youn wrote: This edition will seriously weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. I guess you could put her closest from unit in a hope that your opponent fires at her vs the unit she is next to.
I never saw her as tanky. Mostly because of ID and her lack of EW.
That said, she likely still keeps the wonder twins who can take wounds for her...
Youn wrote: This edition will seriously weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. I guess you could put her closest from unit in a hope that your opponent fires at her vs the unit she is next to.
All these examples involve storm shields which we don't have rules for, so might be worth holding off on that assumption
It's not the rules for storm shields, but the ability to not have all storm shields. I'm sure the rules will shake out to be sensible. I was just hoping it got addressed in the main rule.
Lord Kragan wrote: Interestingly. People were right, there's smaller SH detachments with no benefits. Hell, there's a detachment that DEDUCES COMMAND POINTS!
That Auxillary detachment is kind of nuts. I mean I get it if you want to add just one extra FOC option to your army for some reason, but at the same time it's rather punishing.
Brotherjanus wrote: Say you have 3 lascannon hits and 4 bolter hits that have wounded and saves have been failed. You would allocate the successful wounding hits depending on what's best as the defender. For example, a unit of 5 Ork Nobs with 3 wounds each. You would resolve the bolter wounds first dealing 3 damage to a healthy Nob killing it then one damage to a second healthy Nob. You then assign one lascannon hit against the now damaged Nob. Roll for damage. If you roll a 1 the lucky Nob lives to soak the next hit, otherwise he alone is removed (2-6 damage doesn't matter as 2 will kill him). It then goes from 2 total dead Nobs to 5 dead Nobs depending on die rolls. This is one example and it will speed up once everyone plays it a few times.
For defender wouldnt best be bolter, bolter, lascannon, bolter, lc, lc?
If the rules allow it and you wanted to be a cheesy nob then you take bolter hits until you have just one wound left then take a lascannon hit.
I'm sure they'll have stuff governing different weapons and fast rolling in the side bar that we can't see yet.
You couldn't do that because I, the attacker, would roll all the bolter shots first, tell you to resolve them, then move on to las cannons.
Lord Kragan wrote: Interestingly. People were right, there's smaller SH detachments with no benefits. Hell, there's a detachment that DEDUCES COMMAND POINTS!
Spoiler:
I'm okay with this. Want to take that extra Librarian for the spellpower? Fine. -1 CP. Seems good to me.
Interesting. As most tournament formats are just allowing full RAWGW rules for at least the first few months/year, it looks like we'll have all sorts of lists possible.
Lord Kragan wrote: Interestingly. People were right, there's smaller SH detachments with no benefits. Hell, there's a detachment that DEDUCES COMMAND POINTS!
Figured as much - didn't expect the fortifications one though. That's handy. The auxiliary is a surprise (and well thought out).
Lord Kragan wrote: Interestingly. People were right, there's smaller SH detachments with no benefits. Hell, there's a detachment that DEDUCES COMMAND POINTS!
That Auxillary detachment is kind of nuts. I mean I get it if you want to add just one extra FOC option to your army for some reason, but at the same time it's rather punishing.
Looks like a snap from a printed book, are preview copies doing the rounds?
Brotherjanus wrote: Say you have 3 lascannon hits and 4 bolter hits that have wounded and saves have been failed. You would allocate the successful wounding hits depending on what's best as the defender. For example, a unit of 5 Ork Nobs with 3 wounds each. You would resolve the bolter wounds first dealing 3 damage to a healthy Nob killing it then one damage to a second healthy Nob. You then assign one lascannon hit against the now damaged Nob. Roll for damage. If you roll a 1 the lucky Nob lives to soak the next hit, otherwise he alone is removed (2-6 damage doesn't matter as 2 will kill him). It then goes from 2 total dead Nobs to 5 dead Nobs depending on die rolls. This is one example and it will speed up once everyone plays it a few times.
For defender wouldnt best be bolter, bolter, lascannon, bolter, lc, lc?
If the rules allow it and you wanted to be a cheesy nob then you take bolter hits until you have just one wound left then take a lascannon hit.
I'm sure they'll have stuff governing different weapons and fast rolling in the side bar that we can't see yet.
If it's like AoS, the attacker decides the order in which the attacks are resolved, and they have to be completely resolved before moving on to the next attack. You would have to resolve all bolter shots before moving on to the lascannon, unless the attacker was foolish enough to attack with the lascannon first in this situation.
Brotherjanus wrote: Say you have 3 lascannon hits and 4 bolter hits that have wounded and saves have been failed. You would allocate the successful wounding hits depending on what's best as the defender. For example, a unit of 5 Ork Nobs with 3 wounds each. You would resolve the bolter wounds first dealing 3 damage to a healthy Nob killing it then one damage to a second healthy Nob. You then assign one lascannon hit against the now damaged Nob. Roll for damage. If you roll a 1 the lucky Nob lives to soak the next hit, otherwise he alone is removed (2-6 damage doesn't matter as 2 will kill him). It then goes from 2 total dead Nobs to 5 dead Nobs depending on die rolls. This is one example and it will speed up once everyone plays it a few times.
For defender wouldnt best be bolter, bolter, lascannon, bolter, lc, lc?
If the rules allow it and you wanted to be a cheesy nob then you take bolter hits until you have just one wound left then take a lascannon hit.
I'm sure they'll have stuff governing different weapons and fast rolling in the side bar that we can't see yet.
You couldn't do that because I, the attacker, would roll all the bolter shots first, tell you to resolve them, then move on to las cannons.
Well if you want to optimize lascannons unless nob survives at which point you switch to bolters to finish. Prevents bolters leaving wounded which lascannon overkills.
Youn wrote: This edition will seriously weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. I guess you could put her closest from unit in a hope that your opponent fires at her vs the unit she is next to.
I never saw her as tanky. Mostly because of ID and her lack of EW.
ClockworkZion wrote: Inquisition seems to be changing since it was 1 HQ and a set number of Elites per Inquisitor and that fits none of those detachments.
Actually it hasn't changed. If memory serces right it was 3 elites and one additional HQ per mandatory HQ. That's a Vanguard detachment (3 elites-minimum, though- and 1-2 HQs)
Youn wrote: This edition will seriously weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. I guess you could put her closest from unit in a hope that your opponent fires at her vs the unit she is next to.
I never saw her as tanky. Mostly because of ID and her lack of EW.
I like the Aux detachnebt. Probably means I could bring a guard platoon (assuming they haven't just gotten rid of those). Hell, I could bring a random GK Grand Master. Since they refer to it as a super-heavy detachment I'm assuming Chapter Masters as LoW are gone.
Youn wrote: This edition will seriously weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. I guess you could put her closest from unit in a hope that your opponent fires at her vs the unit she is next to.
I never saw her as tanky. Mostly because of ID and her lack of EW.
Uhm... she has/had EW.
Not in her original form. She went down like she had a glass jaw if she got hit with S6+. I haven't looked at the Gathering Storm rules in a while, but gather that's where she gained it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cephalobeard wrote: Wow, a lot of those detachments don't even require Troops. That's incredible.
Well the Deathwing crying should be over since it has a detachment now.
ClockworkZion wrote: Inquisition seems to be changing since it was 1 HQ and a set number of Elites per Inquisitor and that fits none of those detachments.
Actually it hasn't changed. If memory serces right it was 3 elites and one additional HQ per mandatory HQ. That's a Vanguard detachment (3 elites-minimum, though- and 1-2 HQs)
I like the aux detachment idea it allows you to include a single ally unit, or an additional unit in a single slot. At a cost, so if you want say a spearhead detachment but want 7 heavy support units you only get 2 command points. Or more likely a battalion detachment with 4 heavies etc. I kind of whish additional detachments had some built in penalty. The way I see it is if I have cheap HQs there is no reason not to take say a vanguard detachment if I want 3 elite choices in my army. I could easily get 4 CP. It also seems like MSU benefits from the CP system as long as the units are cheap.
I find it strange that the Patrol Detachment gets you absolutely nothing, but the Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider all give you +1 Command Point. Outside of incredibly small games where you can't afford 3+ of any one choice, I can't see a reason to ever take it.
Assuming Rubrics are troops for Thousand Sons it seems like the best balance to get CP is one battalion and one patrol since there is no (smart) way for me to fill out a brigade.
That would require 4 troops and 3 HQ and give me enough slots for whatever I want. If a LoW pops up I can add it as a single detachment. So, 4 CP tops assuming nothing else to grant them in matched play.
Deadawake1347 wrote: I find it strange that the Patrol Detachment gets you absolutely nothing, but the Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider all give you +1 Command Point. Outside of incredibly small games where you can't afford 3+ of any one choice, I can't see a reason to ever take it.
It's basically for super small games. Like teaching people to play or using just the stuff in the starter.
Deadawake1347 wrote: I find it strange that the Patrol Detachment gets you absolutely nothing, but the Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider all give you +1 Command Point. Outside of incredibly small games where you can't afford 3+ of any one choice, I can't see a reason to ever take it.
It is the old Allied detachment, 1 HQ 1 troop, so it is the cheapest access (without losing CP) to units from other factions. The other FOCs require a much larger investment. Now if you want 3 of a slot then yes no reason not to take one of these.
Well, that supreme command detachment answers our Orky questions about how to get as many HQs into a list as we'd like. Nice. Now with added command points!
Daedalus81 wrote: Assuming Rubrics are troops for Thousand Sons it seems like the best balance to get CP is one battalion and one patrol since there is no (smart) way for me to fill out a brigade.
That would require 4 troops and 3 HQ and give me enough slots for whatever I want. If a LoW pops up I can add it as a single detachment. So, 4 CP tops assuming nothing else to grant them in matched play.
Also, have they specified what "Faction" means? Is it any keyword on the datasheet? So you could have Nurgle Daemons in a detachment with Nurgle CSM? Or not?
Edit: NM, I see "Faction Keywords" have their own section.
Breng77 wrote: It also seems like MSU benefits from the CP system as long as the units are cheap.
I pondered filling out a brigade with cheap cultists, but ultimately i'd have a ton of useless units. Armies that can fill those slots and still be useful are not the elite ones. And if they aren't elite then they'll have lots of small and vulnerable units.
skarsol wrote: Wait, so one LOW is no penalty, but one anything else loses you a CP? That's... dumb.
Everything else is part of the other FOCs. I had the same though as you initially, but then thought better of it.
Yeah, in a world where your super-heavy options are 1 or 3-5, penalising you strategically for taking your own biggest commanding officer seems a bit much.
On the other hand I'm slightly troubled by the idea that other detachments will be available in different publications. That is, after all, sort of how they got into trouble with 7e. Of course if they stick religiously to offering command benefits as CPonly then it will probably be OK.
Yeah, in a world where your super-heavy options are 1 or 3-5, penalising you strategically for taking your own biggest commanding officer seems a bit much.
On the other hand I'm slightly troubled by the idea that other detachments will be available in different publications. That is, after all, sort of how they got into trouble with 7e. Of course if they stick religiously to offering command benefits as CPonly then it will probably be OK.
You assume those commanders are still LoW.
Also I believe it was said what you can use CP on will be unique to each army. Not the detachments themselves.
skarsol wrote: Wait, so one LOW is no penalty, but one anything else loses you a CP? That's... dumb.
Everything else is part of the other FOCs. I had the same though as you initially, but then thought better of it.
Yeah, in a world where your super-heavy options are 1 or 3-5, penalising you strategically for taking your own biggest commanding officer seems a bit much.
On the other hand I'm slightly troubled by the idea that other detachments will be available in different publications. That is, after all, sort of how they got into trouble with 7e. Of course if they stick religiously to offering command benefits as CPonly then it will probably be OK.
yeah I think I would have preferred that the LOW be a 0-1 in the larger detachments, then have it as a slot in the aux detachment, so taking 2 penalizes your CP. Then have the 3-5 detachment as is.
That will make for a pretty significant difference between Chaos Termies and Loyalist ones. Chaos Termies will have much better close range firepower with their Combi-Bolters, but Loyalist Termies will be able to Run and Shoot.
Eh. d6 extra inches for hitting on 6's. Not a great trade unless that advance is the difference between being in and out of range.
It gives me something to do with the 27 boys who aren't toting special weapons, I'm not going to complain. That's 54 shots I wasn't getting before. I'll take hitting on sixes, and being able to shoot the SWs at all on the advance.
I think I speak for all Ork players when I say that every d6 of movement helps.
So, based on the Faction Keywords, the Battalion Detachment is basically a CAD + an AD that gives you 3 CP, assuming you stick to good (Imperium keyword) or evil (Chaos keyword). Will be interesting to see if there's a Xenos keyword (have we seen a full Tau/Eldar sheet?).
Has there been any hints as to increasing benefits if you use more specific Keywords for your detachment? (A Chaos detachment, vs a Heretic Astartes detachment, vs a Legion detachment)
Has there been any hints as to increasing benefits if you use more specific Keywords for your detachment? (A Chaos detachment, vs a Heretic Astartes detachment, vs a Legion detachment)
Probably not. But most of the command benefits will be for much more specific keywords I suspect.
OH MAN... I'm going to make a whole fething army of Aux. Support Detachments... It'll be a fething circus of all manner of gak... And guess what the best part is? IT'LL BE BATTLE FORGED!!! Unbound literally just became Battle Forged. ROFL!!!
Has there been any hints as to increasing benefits if you use more specific Keywords for your detachment? (A Chaos detachment, vs a Heretic Astartes detachment, vs a Legion detachment)
Yes, but it will be in terms of abilities to use your CP on.
Youn wrote: This edition will seriously weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. I guess you could put her closest from unit in a hope that your opponent fires at her vs the unit she is next to.
I never saw her as tanky. Mostly because of ID and her lack of EW.
Uhm... she has/had EW.
Not in her original form. She went down like she had a glass jaw if she got hit with S6+. I haven't looked at the Gathering Storm rules in a while, but gather that's where she gained it.
She has EW since her latest incarnation and that's what Youn meant with weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. As you mentioned the twins (she hadn't before, too) in the next paragraph it was absolutely unapparent that you talked about the outdated rules.
OT: at first I was kinda confused when I saw the Supreme Command Detachment, but I guess with the new character rules it makes some sense. I like idea of the Auxillary Support Detachment.
oni wrote: OH MAN... I'm going to make a whole fething army of Aux. Support Detachments... It'll be a fething circus of all manner of gak... And guess what the best part is? IT'LL BE BATTLE FORGED!!! Unbound literally just became Battle Forged. ROFL!!!
Fixed with one sentence. You can't have a legal army with less than 0CP. Done.
oni wrote: OH MAN... I'm going to make a whole fething army of Aux. Support Detachments... It'll be a fething circus of all manner of gak... And guess what the best part is? IT'LL BE BATTLE FORGED!!! Unbound literally just became Battle Forged. ROFL!!!
Fixed with one sentence. You can't have a legal army with less than 0CP. Done.
oni wrote: OH MAN... I'm going to make a whole fething army of Aux. Support Detachments... It'll be a fething circus of all manner of gak... And guess what the best part is? IT'LL BE BATTLE FORGED!!! Unbound literally just became Battle Forged. ROFL!!!
You can't if you don't have enough Command Points. I think it wil be pretty absurd to have legal armies with less than 0 CP.
Has there been any hints as to increasing benefits if you use more specific Keywords for your detachment? (A Chaos detachment, vs a Heretic Astartes detachment, vs a Legion detachment)
Yes, but it will be in terms of abilities to use your CP on.
Yes. This was noted in the second live Q&A. For example, an all Blood Angels army could use Imperium, Space Marine or Blood Angels stratagems whereas a mixed Space Marine force could only use Imperium or Space Marine stratagems, etc.
There's also no reason that tournaments couldn't limit the number of total org charts, or even restrict certain ones. SUre there's room for beard, but it's also super easy to manage at the event level, which is great news.
Lord Kragan wrote: Interestingly. People were right, there's smaller SH detachments with no benefits. Hell, there's a detachment that DEDUCES COMMAND POINTS!
That Auxillary detachment is kind of nuts. I mean I get it if you want to add just one extra FOC option to your army for some reason, but at the same time it's rather punishing.
Ummm, I disagree. Your looking at it from the perspective of adding a single additional unit from your own army. I am looking at it as a way to add a farseer or maybe fire dragons to my dark eldar if I feel like it without taking a whole second detachment of a greater size.
Hmmm my legal Imperium Army with SoS, Custodes, Celestine and Tempestus Scions, here I come That I can create without looking at 5 supplements and a master degree
Has there been any hints as to increasing benefits if you use more specific Keywords for your detachment? (A Chaos detachment, vs a Heretic Astartes detachment, vs a Legion detachment)
Yes, but it will be in terms of abilities to use your CP on.
Yes. This was noted in the second live Q&A. For example, an all Blood Angels army could use Imperium, Space Marine or Blood Angels stratagems whereas a mixed Space Marine force could only use Imperium or Space Marine stratagems, etc.
Ah, okay. So now the big question (for me) is if the Keyword "Mark of Tzeentch" can be combined with "Tzeentch" for a benefit or if they have to rely on "Chaos".
Ummm, I disagree. Your looking at it from the perspective of adding a single additional unit from your own army. I am looking at it as a way to add a farseer or maybe fire dragons to my dark eldar if I feel like it without taking a whole second detachment of a greater size.
What are you talking about. I'm going to add a Farseer and a Solitaire to my Space Wolves/Imperial Guard.
oni wrote: OH MAN... I'm going to make a whole fething army of Aux. Support Detachments... It'll be a fething circus of all manner of gak... And guess what the best part is? IT'LL BE BATTLE FORGED!!! Unbound literally just became Battle Forged. ROFL!!!
Fixed with one sentence. You can't have a legal army with less than 0CP. Done.
Is that a thing? I've not seen it.
Neither have I, but you have to ask - what happens when you have negative CP? Either it isn't possible or your opponent gets that CP.
Youn wrote: This edition will seriously weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. I guess you could put her closest from unit in a hope that your opponent fires at her vs the unit she is next to.
I never saw her as tanky. Mostly because of ID and her lack of EW.
Uhm... she has/had EW.
Not in her original form. She went down like she had a glass jaw if she got hit with S6+. I haven't looked at the Gathering Storm rules in a while, but gather that's where she gained it.
She has EW since her latest incarnation and that's what Youn meant with weaken Celestine from the tank she used to be. As you mentioned the twins (she hadn't before, too) in the next paragraph it was absolutely unapparent that you talked about the outdated rules.
I forgot she had EW and thought people were still thinking of her old use in a unit to tank/pass out S6+ wounds to the unit as needed.
Has there been any hints as to increasing benefits if you use more specific Keywords for your detachment? (A Chaos detachment, vs a Heretic Astartes detachment, vs a Legion detachment)
Yes, but it will be in terms of abilities to use your CP on.
Yes. This was noted in the second live Q&A. For example, an all Blood Angels army could use Imperium, Space Marine or Blood Angels stratagems whereas a mixed Space Marine force could only use Imperium or Space Marine stratagems, etc.
Ah, okay. So now the big question (for me) is if the Keyword "Mark of Tzeentch" can be combined with "Tzeentch" for a benefit or if they have to rely on "Chaos".
In AoS, you can Mark generic Chaos units, and they win the "Keyword" of the Mark. So you can have Warriors or Marauders or Knights with the "Mark of Tzeentch", so they don't breake alliance with your Tzeentch faction.
And this is important because with the Disciples of Tzeentch battletome you have battle traits, artifacts, etc... to three types of Tzeentch armies: "Generic" Tzeentch, Mortal Tzeentchs, and Daemon Tzeentchs.
Hmmm my legal Imperium Army with SoS, Custodes, Celestine and Tempestus Scions, here I come That I can create without looking at 5 supplements and a master degree
It'll be sweet. And hopefully, using narrower factions (i.e. Adeptus Astartes or Astra Militraum) will give extra bonuses to make up for the lowered flexibility.
Lord Kragan wrote: Interestingly. People were right, there's smaller SH detachments with no benefits. Hell, there's a detachment that DEDUCES COMMAND POINTS!
That Auxillary detachment is kind of nuts. I mean I get it if you want to add just one extra FOC option to your army for some reason, but at the same time it's rather punishing.
Ummm, I disagree. Your looking at it from the perspective of adding a single additional unit from your own army. I am looking at it as a way to add a farseer or maybe fire dragons to my dark eldar if I feel like it without taking a whole second detachment of a greater size.
Shouldn,t they have the Eldar keyword and be elligible to run under a single FOC?
Ah, okay. So now the big question (for me) is if the Keyword "Mark of Tzeentch" can be combined with "Tzeentch" for a benefit or if they have to rely on "Chaos".
Rubrics have the faction keywords: Chaos, Tzeentch, Heretic Astartes, Thousand Sons
You can include them in an all Chaos army with daemons and other heretics. In an army that is all tzeentch daemons and thousand sons. In an all CSM army. Or all thousand sons.
oni wrote: OH MAN... I'm going to make a whole fething army of Aux. Support Detachments... It'll be a fething circus of all manner of gak... And guess what the best part is? IT'LL BE BATTLE FORGED!!! Unbound literally just became Battle Forged. ROFL!!!
Fixed with one sentence. You can't have a legal army with less than 0CP. Done.
Is that a thing? I've not seen it.
Neither have I, but you have to ask - what happens when you have negative CP? Either it isn't possible or your opponent gets that CP.
I mean, it's possible nothing happens. I HOPE you're right.
Hmm... I hope the individual rules (and benefits) are more restricted. I mean, 'All units must be from the same Faction' sounds rather pointless if the faction is 'Imperium'.
Hmm... I hope the individual rules (and benefits) are more restricted. I mean, 'All units must be from the same Faction' sounds rather pointless if the faction is 'Imperium'.
We saw on the Gravis Armour Captain that he shares his special rule only with models with the same chapter keyword.
I wonder what the tournament scene will look like. Unlimited number of detachments? 3 or something max? I'm betting we'll see a cap after a year or so if GW hasn't introduced one themselves.
oni wrote: OH MAN... I'm going to make a whole fething army of Aux. Support Detachments... It'll be a fething circus of all manner of gak... And guess what the best part is? IT'LL BE BATTLE FORGED!!! Unbound literally just became Battle Forged. ROFL!!!
Of course that's same as unbound now. No benefits in 7th ed, no cp in 8th. No change.
I wonder what the tournament scene will look like. Unlimited number of detachments? 3 or something max? I'm betting we'll see a cap after a year or so if GW hasn't introduced one themselves.
I suspect the usefulness of CP will sort that out quite well.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: It says you can't spend CP if you don't have any, so no negative totals.
It doesn't seem to say you ever HAVE to spend them, either.
Well, yeah, you can choose not to spend them, what's your point?
My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.
It will probably be like AoS where you can make an army from all the different armies in Order but focusing your list into one subfaction grants the more potent synergies etc.
tneva82 wrote: Harlequins getting hq or taking them donks your cp? All seem to require hq...
Your assuming none of the harlie characters moved to HQ though.
No i didn't. Check the bolded.
Either they get hq or they are -1cp per choice which would be very punishing.
If you check out the webstore, Harlies list the Triumvarate of Ynnead as HQs, so you may be able to take one of those characters as an HQ. Very limiting though.
Requizen wrote: I wonder what the tournament scene will look like. Unlimited number of detachments? 3 or something max? I'm betting we'll see a cap after a year or so if GW hasn't introduced one themselves.
Doubt gw starts to give any hardcoded x detachment per 1000 pts style rule
MasterSlowPoke wrote: It says you can't spend CP if you don't have any, so no negative totals.
It doesn't seem to say you ever HAVE to spend them, either.
Well, yeah, you can choose not to spend them, what's your point?
My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.
To lose command points you must first have command points. There is nothingnthat indicates that having people run around in Command Point debt is the intention, or even an option.
The "there isn't a rule that says I can't" doesn't work in a permissive ruleset.
Hmm... I hope the individual rules (and benefits) are more restricted. I mean, 'All units must be from the same Faction' sounds rather pointless if the faction is 'Imperium'.
We saw on the Gravis Armour Captain that he shares his special rule only with models with the same chapter keyword.
I just hope it's enough to counter the massive amount of flexibility (you even get command points).
Requizen wrote: I wonder what the tournament scene will look like. Unlimited number of detachments? 3 or something max? I'm betting we'll see a cap after a year or so if GW hasn't introduced one themselves.
Doubt gw starts to give any hardcoded x detachment per 1000 pts style rule
GW didn't cap the number of detachments in the rules, but there might be a cap for matched play.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: It says you can't spend CP if you don't have any, so no negative totals.
It doesn't seem to say you ever HAVE to spend them, either.
Well, yeah, you can choose not to spend them, what's your point?
My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.
To lose command points you must first have command points. There is nothingnthat indicates that having people run around in Command Point debt is the intention, or even an option.
The "there isn't a rule that says I can't" doesn't work in a permissive ruleset.
I'm definitely not "that guy"ing you right now, but if the rules do not state you cannot go negative, then RAW, people will go negative and it will likely be allowed, because that's RAW. No currently shown rule has stated they need them.
Again, I -HOPE- it's as simple as was suggested previously, that you simply cannot go below 0.
Hmm... I hope the individual rules (and benefits) are more restricted. I mean, 'All units must be from the same Faction' sounds rather pointless if the faction is 'Imperium'.
We saw on the Gravis Armour Captain that he shares his special rule only with models with the same chapter keyword.
I just hope it's enough to counter the massive amount of flexibility (you even get command points).
It shuts down why most people were running multiple subfactions. I mean If the Barkstar is dead, that should be enough to kill most of the sharing abuse.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: It says you can't spend CP if you don't have any, so no negative totals.
It doesn't seem to say you ever HAVE to spend them, either.
Well, yeah, you can choose not to spend them, what's your point?
My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.
To lose command points you must first have command points. There is nothingnthat indicates that having people run around in Command Point debt is the intention, or even an option.
The "there isn't a rule that says I can't" doesn't work in a permissive ruleset.
I'm definitely not "that guy"ing you right now, but if the rules do not state you cannot go negative, then RAW, people will go negative and it will likely be allowed, because that's RAW. No currently shown rule has stated they need them.
Again, I -HOPE- it's as simple as was suggested previously, that you simply cannot go below 0.
A permissive ruleset requires you to have permission to do something. 40k is a permissive ruleset as rules dictate everything we can do. By claiming that something is allowed just because nothing says we can't is a horrible arguement that could be made about and insane nmber of things and breaks the game.
Anyone who wants to run a negative CP list is a git. Period.
Hmm... I hope the individual rules (and benefits) are more restricted. I mean, 'All units must be from the same Faction' sounds rather pointless if the faction is 'Imperium'.
Yeah, most of the benefits will likely come from characters buffing specific factions so having a bunch of different factions is fine, you just dont get any of the boosts that come with more mono build factions.
My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.
It says that you can't spend a CP if you have 0 CP, so you can't go negative in the first place.
My point is there's nothing to indicate you can't go negative. Just because you don't have the points means you can't use them. You don't NEED to use CP, so you don't NEED to have the points, until we see otherwise.
It says that you can't spend a CP if you have 0 CP, so you can't go negative in the first place.
The negative consequences of list building aren't 'spending' CP though.
Easy fix for match play - negative CPs turn into positive CPs added to your opponents total.
Justyn wrote: couldn't give us the rest of the page...
He,s pulling these from a closed FB group, not taking his own pictures. Cut him some slack.
actually it looks like spikeybitz.com cut the page in half for their article. but i posted the entire page a few pages back. and here's all of today's leaks i could find so far: http://imgur.com/a/kVg7o
I'm hoping that Matched Play has detachment restrictions and/or the allies rules are supper harsh for differing factions joining forces.
Why? Other than it was a problem in 7th Edition. It seems they fixed those problems by a) not letting characters join units and b)making special abilities only effect their own specific faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: axisofentropy thank you very much for the Info.
Easy fix for match play - negative CPs turn into positive CPs added to your opponents total.
I hope so... Cuz that'll be be even more fun. I'll take a whole army of Aux. Detachment's of the same faction just to feth with my opponent. "Hey... Here's another +10 CP's for ya cuz I'm mother fething Primaris Santa Claus."
Even with all the freedom of army building in AoS you can't mix people of different orders.
So you can't mix Stormcast with Chaos Daemons with Greenskins.
I'm sure something like that is gonna be in 40k Matched Play rules.
Poor Orks and Tau, I don't see with what they can ally... maybe Tau and Eldar.
Cause it would be pretty silly say bloodthirster and grey knights be best buddies?
That would be very silly. But why would it be sillier in matched play than in either of the other versions. Matched players are not known for their adherence to fluff. If they were things like Barkstar would never happen.
Galas wrote: Even with all the freedom of army building in AoS you can't mix people of different orders.
So you can't mix Stormcast with Chaos Daemons with Greenskins.
I'm sure something like that is gonna be in 40k Matched Play rules.
Poor Orks and Tau, I don't see with what they can ally... maybe Tau and Eldar.
Allie with themselves?
If ork clans/tau step rules reflective of legion and chapter rules come back into the game, opens up more for updates for these factions.
tneva82 wrote: Cause it would be pretty silly say bloodthirster and grey knights be best buddies?
Sure.
Then again, I'd like to be able to freely ally xenos and imperials for some strange Rogue Trader with her alien mercenaries type of army or mix chaos and IG to represent traitor guard etc.
Cause it would be pretty silly say bloodthirster and grey knights be best buddies?
That would be very silly. But why would it be sillier in matched play than in either of the other versions. Matched players are not known for their adherence to fluff. If they were things like Barkstar would never happen.
A" least before there was some penalty for it. Why get rid of it? Does game really be that simplifie?
tneva82 wrote:Cause it would be pretty silly say bloodthirster and grey knights be best buddies?
Galas wrote:Even with all the freedom of army building in AoS you can't mix people of different orders.
So you can't mix Stormcast with Chaos Daemons with Greenskins.
I'm sure something like that is gonna be in 40k Matched Play rules.
Poor Orks and Tau, I don't see with what they can ally... maybe Tau and Eldar.
This is almost certainly the case. They said they'd talk about Allies later on, so I'm assuming there are still restrictions for which armies can be friends with which other ones, even with the new Detachment system.
A" least before there was some penalty for it. Why get rid of it? Does game really be that simplifie?
There are two penalties for it. Less command points, and leader/character abilities not working with each other. Given a couple of the CP abilities already seen, and that they are the less potent ones available to everyone, I think this will work itself out.
Galas wrote: Even with all the freedom of army building in AoS you can't mix people of different orders.
So you can't mix Stormcast with Chaos Daemons with Greenskins.
I'm sure something like that is gonna be in 40k Matched Play rules.
Poor Orks and Tau, I don't see with what they can ally... maybe Tau and Eldar.
I really hope not. It already sucks in AOS that the ogres can no longer act as mercenaries in other armies or that Freeguild cannot be used to represent vampire's mortal followers or necromancers allies and countless other such combinations that would make sense but are needlessly forbidden.
This is almost certainly the case. They said they'd talk about Allies later on, so I'm assuming there are still restrictions for which armies can be friends with which other ones, even with the new Detachment system.
There probably is. Although it doesn't have to cover nearly as much given that they made Imperium a faction.
Galas wrote: Even with all the freedom of army building in AoS you can't mix people of different orders.
So you can't mix Stormcast with Chaos Daemons with Greenskins.
I'm sure something like that is gonna be in 40k Matched Play rules.
Poor Orks and Tau, I don't see with what they can ally... maybe Tau and Eldar.
I really hope not. It already sucks in AOS that the ogres can no longer act as mercenaries in other armies or that Freeguild cannot be used to represent vampire's mortal followers or necromancers allies and countless other such combinations that would make sense but are needlessly forbidden.
They are forbidden because balance. If you want to play all of that (Something that I normally do. I have a unit of Ironguts to use as mercenaries) you can play narrative! Something that I play all the time.
People shoudln't look for "100% fluffy lists" in Matched play.
I bet prices will be different for the same weapon in different books. Take the to hit value of the majority or something like that looks to be close to 20 points per power
I'm assuming that's from the starter set Primaris figures and that weapon prices might be different for different armies when we see the index book point lists.
Tbey've already said that they're doing bespoke rules on a per unit basis, so I no reason to believe that the point cost for equipment and whatnot wasn't approached in exactly the same way, which would mean taking the units stats into account.
I think the points for weapons will be different for characters, units etc. I am assuming that is just the starter set info for ease of use in one place. On the starter models there are no costed weapons that the infantry have that are shared with the characters. I think the indexes will be more detailed and granular.
Cephalobeard wrote: Those are... very weird points. Also Inceptors, at 53ppm, is a lot more than I expected.
That's exactly what a crisis suit costs with two weapons and a bonding knife at the moment, unless you take flamers or burst cannons which are a bit cheaper.
I'd say that's pretty much exactly fair honestly: Weaker weapons but T5, no markerlights but better base BS.
Cephalobeard wrote: Those are... very weird points. Also Inceptors, at 53ppm, is a lot more than I expected.
That's exactly what a crisis suit costs with two weapons and a bonding knife at the moment, unless you take flamers or burst cannons which are a bit cheaper.
I'd say that's pretty much exactly fair honestly: Weaker weapons but T5, no markerlights but better base BS.
I suppose thats fair. Will come down to what the Chapter Tactics do.
2 lascannon shots hit a Tyranid Warrior squad with a wounded model that has a single wound remaining. Both Lascannon shots hit, wound, bypass the save and roll for damage. The damage rolled is a 6 and a 1. Is the 6 applied first to the wounded model, or is the 1 applied first to the wounded model?
Seems the rules do not cover situations like this.
I can only see that we would have to roll for the attacks one at a time?
How do you think the various Chapters would react to the idea of tampering with Geneseed trying to "improve" on the Emperor's design and make better Space Marines?
I think my Chapter the Raven Guard would be highly sceptical if not outright hostile to the idea of Primaris Space Marines, due to the disastrous failure of their own Primarch Corvus Corax to create his own improved Space Marines as a shortcut to rebuilding his Legion in the Horus Heresy.
2 lascannon shots hit a Tyranid Warrior squad with a wounded model that has a single wound remaining. Both Lascannon shots hit, wound, bypass the save and roll for damage. The damage rolled is a 6 and a 1. Is the 6 applied first to the wounded model, or is the 1 applied first to the wounded model?
Seems the rules do not cover situations like this.
I can only see that we would have to roll for the attacks one at a time?
These rules specifically say they are for resolving attacks one at a time. I sure as hell hope they have better instructions for batch rolling.
2 lascannon shots hit a Tyranid Warrior squad with a wounded model that has a single wound remaining. Both Lascannon shots hit, wound, bypass the save and roll for damage. The damage rolled is a 6 and a 1. Is the 6 applied first to the wounded model, or is the 1 applied first to the wounded model?
Seems the rules do not cover situations like this.
I can only see that we would have to roll for the attacks one at a time?
You don't roll before choosing the victim. And yes, you have to roll the damage one at time. (Though in this case you'd roll only once, as there is no need to roll for the first tyranid, as it has only one wound remaining.)
2 lascannon shots hit a Tyranid Warrior squad with a wounded model that has a single wound remaining. Both Lascannon shots hit, wound, bypass the save and roll for damage. The damage rolled is a 6 and a 1. Is the 6 applied first to the wounded model, or is the 1 applied first to the wounded model?
Seems the rules do not cover situations like this.
I can only see that we would have to roll for the attacks one at a time?
These rules specifically say they are for resolving attacks one at a time. I sure as hell hope they have better instructions for batch rolling.
Hmm, the rules say attacks need to be rolled one at a time, or in some cases can be rolled together.
It seems every time you have multi-damage weapons shooting multi-wound units with multiple models you will have to roll one at a time.
Considering some armies have multi wound units army wide (like Primaris), seems like this could slow the game down.
For models with same weapons shooting at a unit with same T, same saves, you can just roll all hits, all saves and then all damage roles, apply them left to right however the dice fell onto the board. Done.
As for multiple damage weapons, you will always get maximum benefit when shooting at a unit without wounded models. The enemy will always pick off valuable models last, so no advantage is gained from allocating a high AP wound before a low AP wound.
So you could just use different colored dice like you have during the last three editions, and announce to your opponent that you will try to kill unwounded models with them if possible, otherwise shoot them last.
Then, using colored dice, you roll to hit, to wound, enemy roles saves and you start assigning dice from left to right again, ordered by weapons.
Pause to assign plasma, lascannon or lasgun of land raider slaying +5 whenever you have taken out a model.
Statistically it's the same as rolling each weapon one by one, without being a PITA.
Example:
Spoiler:
10 tactical marines with 8 Bolters, one Meltagun and one Multimelta, shooting at 3 Meganobz (2+ save, 3 Wounds), one of them lost 1 wound from picking his nose with a PK Whatever the method 3 boltas each do 1 damage, damage rolls for your meltas would be :two:
Rolling one by one:
Shoot bolters one by one until you take off two wounds, then shoot melta gun
Since it did not kill the nob, you continue shooting bolters until it dies.
Then you shoot the multi-melta and kill a third nob.
Keep rolling bolters until none are left.
My suggestion:
Use 16 blue dices for the bolters, two red dice for the meltagun and multimelta (because same stats), roll all to hit rolls, all to wound rolls, then enemy takes all saves (do the meltas separately ofc).
Roll damage for meltas and sort the dice from left to right.
Take two unsaved bolter dice and kill the first nob. Take first melta dice from the left, apply damage, then apply bolter damage, then use last melta.
Same result, less time. Unless your opponent is one of the kind that believes that the order of dice makes a difference in statistics, of course.
As for Hellblasters. Just stick the Captain within 6" of them, you will get to reroll 1s, though mitigating some of the risk associated with firing Overcharge. You will irradiate units that way.
Loopstah wrote: I'm assuming that's from the starter set Primaris figures and that weapon prices might be different for different armies when we see the index book point lists.
Yes but even within same army value of weapon differs from wielder.
Well damn, never thought I'd see the day plasma got a high and low-power mode again.
Either way, seeing this and guessing that Primaris weapons are increased range and AP, my prediction for normal plasma is.
Range 24", Rapid Fire 1, S7, AP-3, D1 with the option to risk high power for S8 and D2.
That is a pretty big boost for plasma. It means the risk vs. reward is no longer front-loaded on weapon selection, it is an in-game choice. And its base stats are pretty good as-is, so no need to spring for S8/D2 unless something really needs to die.
Call me a fan of these potential changes to plasma.
159pts/3 Interceptors
158pts Captain in Gravis
200pts Hellblasters
120pts/5 Intercessors
Ancient is 70 -- Assault Rifle (Could just be a normal Rifle, if so -7)
Each Lieutenant is 67pts -- Assault Rifle each
For models with same weapons shooting at a unit with same T, same saves, you can just roll all hits, all saves and then all damage roles, apply them left to right however the dice fell onto the board. Done.
As for multiple damage weapons, you will always get maximum benefit when shooting at a unit without wounded models. The enemy will always pick off valuable models last, so no advantage is gained from allocating a high AP wound before a low AP wound.
So you could just use different colored dice like you have during the last three editions, and announce to your opponent that you will try to kill unwounded models with them if possible, otherwise shoot them last.
Then, using colored dice, you roll to hit, to wound, enemy roles saves and you start assigning dice from left to right again, ordered by weapons.
Pause to assign plasma, lascannon or lasgun of land raider slaying +5 whenever you have taken out a model.
Statistically it's the same as rolling each weapon one by one, without being a PITA.
Example:
[spoiler]10 tactical marines with 8 Bolters, one Meltagun and one Multimelta, shooting at 3 Meganobz (2+ save, 3 Wounds), one of them lost 1 wound from picking his nose with a PK Whatever the method 3 boltas each do 1 damage, damage rolls for your meltas would be :two:
Rolling one by one:
Shoot bolters one by one until you take off two wounds, then shoot melta gun
Since it did not kill the nob, you continue shooting bolters until it dies.
Then you shoot the multi-melta and kill a third nob.
Keep rolling bolters until none are left.
My suggestion:
Use 16 blue dices for the bolters, two red dice for the meltagun and multimelta (because same stats), roll all to hit rolls, all to wound rolls, then enemy takes all saves (do the meltas separately ofc).
Roll damage for meltas and sort the dice from left to right.
Take two unsaved bolter dice and kill the first nob. Take first melta dice from the left, apply damage, then apply bolter damage, then use last melta.
Same result, less time. Unless your opponent is one of the kind that believes that the order of dice makes a difference in statistics, of course.
[/spoiler]
That makes perfect sense. I just hope there is another page that spells it out. The page in question says "the following sequence is used to resolve attacks one at a time." I would like a page that outlines the process for batch rolling. It would save a lot of arguments.
So... based on these core rules am I right in thinking that any kind of flying model can be charged and attacked at least once in melee unless the unit has a special rule to prevent it?
159pts/3 Interceptors
158pts Captain in Gravis
200pts Hellblasters
120pts/5 Intercessors
Ancient is 70 -- Assault Rifle (Could just be a normal Rifle, if so -7)
Each Lieutenant is 67pts -- Assault Rifle each
The Lieutenants are equipped differently and only the Inceptors have Assault Bolters. The one LT has a Power Sword(4 pts, so he comes to 64 pts) and the other one has an Auto Bolt Rifle (free). The Ancient has no upgrades from this list.
I don't think the one-at-a-time thing for multi-wounding weapons vs multi-wound dudes will be a huge issue. Yeah, it takes more time than just rolling a crap ton of dice, but the attacker still gets to decide the order his weapons resolve in. So, as discussed, you do the multi-wound weapons first, then the small arms to maximize damage. Occasionally you'll have some bad luck and a guy will get to allocate a d6 worth of lascannon to a model with a single wound left, but not as often as people think (IMO)
Plus that decision making above, and the decision about what to fire at which targets in what order, is all on the level of tactical decision making. Just as an example, if there's a tyranid Warrior with one wound left in a squad, maybe hose the squad down with some small arms to try and kill that guy before you let loose with the lascannon fire.
The beast at the left that look like Tryceratops (Behind the Blight Drone)... maybe artistic freedom... or new Beast of Nurgle or new Nurgle Unit modeL?
They look ultra cool, please, be some kind of Nurgle demon!
159pts/3 Interceptors
158pts Captain in Gravis
200pts Hellblasters
120pts/5 Intercessors
Ancient is 70 -- Assault Rifle (Could just be a normal Rifle, if so -7)
Each Lieutenant is 67pts -- Assault Rifle each
The Lieutenants are equipped differently and only the Inceptors have Assault Bolters. The one LT has a Power Sword(4 pts, so he comes to 64 pts) and the other one has an Auto Bolt Rifle (free). The Ancient has no upgrades from this list.
Each inceptor has 2 Assault Bolters. The Lieutenants as shown are requipped differently, but I don't imagine you are require to make each one take opposite choices, it's likely just two sprues. I did not know if the Ancient had a rifle, so I was adding it with the option, and the -7 within quotations without.
xttz wrote: So... based on these core rules am I right in thinking that any kind of flying model can be charged and attacked at least once in melee unless the unit has a special rule to prevent it?
Yep - It would look like this is the case - same as AOS
I just noticed you can split close combat attacks between different weapons. So that Captain's five attacks can be any combination of MC Power Sword and Boltstorm Gauntlet. Sweet!
I'm still not sure why the damage/wound thing is seen as such a big deal?
If you're really worried about it you can block roll still, just agree beforehand that you apply the damage rolls in ascending or descending order - has pros and cons both ways.
Or agree to just total the wounds then apply as a block across the number of models equal to hits.
But I really don't see it being a massive drain on time.
Looks clearly like the leaked Mortarian model.
