Tyran wrote: Regarding the Necron Warriors vs Marines debate, the elephant in the room is that the GW's lore and vision behind Necron Warriors had changed a lot since their inception.
The moment GW depicted Necron Warriors as this spammable soldier that numbers in the trillions is the moment they were pretty much doomed to stats deflation as GW's vision of Necron Warriors is basically these large silvertide legions, and for that to be a thing they kinda need to be somewhat cheap.
Agreed and a lot of it comes down to which armies GW wants the basic troops to be "Elite". Necron Warriors being BS3+ S4 T4 made them fairly elite for most of the game imo, my old S3 (+1 on the charge) Orks were certainly envious. Based on the stat deflation of Warriors it would appear GW wants to treat them as a sturdy troop rather than an entirely elite army, which isn't surprising to me considering how much larger their model range got with 9th. More models and wargear should give a lot more options for building an army as long as the points aren't out of whack and the wargear is balanced against each other. Making troops cheaper (and less elite) means more options to field those new sculpts you love and more chances for GW to sell you those new models.
I think Warriors coming down a notch (and most importantly becoming cheaper) is a good thing on the whole, cheaper troops lets you field more of the elite or esoteric Necron units without worrying about losing precious points plus more troops generally trends better with reanimation protocols. Still I can see why people who have played Necrons for decades would dislike it. When you've been playing for so long you have an image in your head built up for how your force should be represented in the rules and no one likes getting the rug pulled out from under them.
Note I'm only referring to the BS 4+. I'm not a fan of the warriors Leadership nerf but I suspect characters joining units will fix that problem.
Daedalus81 wrote: You argue in such bad faith it's not even worth my time.
I've often found that those to say that are the ones who don't want or cannot argue back. Nothing I've said is unreasonable but you've just chosen to avoid answering any of it, and instead gone for hyperbolic ad hominem ("... people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad... ") rather than actually addressing the points raised. Worse, you claim that others are removing nuance yet think that throwing a block of cold, hard math at the argument will solve it, declaring that the maths is the thing that actually matters - as if it were the only thing that mattered - and that it makes you right. It doesn't. And it never will.
But if you want to run away from the argument, then that's your prerogative. We are not being forced to interact with one another, and do not have to if we do no choose to. Totally up to you. I wish you well. I hope you have fun with 10th. I on the other hand expect a little more from a company who's trying this for the 10th time and hasn't earned my trust that they'll get it right. The past informs the future, and GW's past is full of stumbling and falling. Why do you presume their future will be any brighter?
Arachnofiend wrote: Having to survive an entire enemy turn to get RP is part of what made the rule so terrible in 8th... Lethality will have to go down a lot for you to see it. I fear the Space Marine matchup in particular.
It was bad in 8th, but I don't think Necrons will have that problem in 10th, at least based off this sliver of a preview. Nowhere in Reanimation Protocols text does it say the unit has to have any models survive the turn. The points of interest to me are "each unit from your army with this ability activates its Reanimation Protocols and reanimates D3 wounds." and the second bullet point. "If all models in that unit have their starting number of wounds, but that unit is not at its Starting Strength, one destroyed model is returned to that unity with one wound remaining."
Reads to me that destroyed units still reanimate because they aren't at their starting strength and all units have to reanimate at the end of your Command phase.
*edit* for the record, even I an avid Necron player with a gigantic collection and many, many years of playing them thinks this is stupid and needs to be elaborated on to prevent cheese.
novembermike wrote: Necrons having reduced leadership makes quite a bit of sense.
LOL no it doesn't. Necrons having LD10 has been a legacy thing, and you're just making up justifications.
I'm not Insectum levels of annoyed because of how good Immortals fill that gap of what Warriors used to feel like, but this statline is a huge step backward, ad they not only LD value but their BS value as well
Sometimes you have to just sit back and think about what the lore actually says. Necrons in lore do not run and they are never afraid, but they are quite often confused or slow to react to changing situations. Warriors are also a step below anything else that's a necrontyr in these things. They've been high leadership for a long time but that has represented something different each time.
Tyran wrote: Regarding the Necron Warriors vs Marines debate, the elephant in the room is that the GW's lore and vision behind Necron Warriors had changed a lot since their inception.
That's actually a very good point that I'd forgotten about.
Once upon a time Necrons were these unstoppable Terminators (not 40k Terminators, Arnold Terminators) because that's what they were based on (however much GW might claim - on the record! - that all their ideas are original and don't come from outside sources).
But around the time of the Wardian Era that changed, they became Tomb Kings in Space, and the hardy Necron Warrior became more akin to a fantasy Skeleton Warrior. Whether this was a good idea can be debated from many angles, but the fact of the matter is for almost as long as they were the old style, Necrons are now the current way they are. As much as I sympathise with those that feel like the flavour of their army, or the themes it ones inhabited, have been stripped away, I think it's too late to go back to the way it was for Necron Warriors.
I remember when they suddenly weren't Sv3+ anymore. That was a shock to the system. Honestly I think part of it might be because GW wanted to not have quite so many Sv3+ armies in the game. Necrons are the ones who drew the short Ward, unfortunately.
Tyran wrote: Regarding the Necron Warriors vs Marines debate, the elephant in the room is that the GW's lore and vision behind Necron Warriors had changed a lot since their inception.
That's actually a very good point that I'd forgotten about.
Once upon a time Necrons were these unstoppable Terminators (not 40k Terminators, Arnold Terminators) because that's what they were based on (however much GW might claim - on the record! - that all their ideas are original and don't come from outside sources).
I really enjoyed the inscrutable Schwarzenegger running around, destroying everything and teleporting away.
Necrons are the ones who drew the short Ward, unfortunately.
Arachnofiend wrote: Having to survive an entire enemy turn to get RP is part of what made the rule so terrible in 8th... Lethality will have to go down a lot for you to see it. I fear the Space Marine matchup in particular.
And not the eldar or tau, who have an ability to wipe out multiple squads per turn? Warriors are, from the looks of it, ment to be chaff. More sturdy then an IG basic trooper, but not something that is 1+ better then a marine for fewer points. They will or seem to have a focus on having mass numbers of characters spread around the army as a mechanic too. In the end what ever they will work will boil down to how point efficient they are and how point efficient very killy armies are. If there is enough armies that can burn fast through necron chaff fast, necron will be bad. If not then they will at worse be different. At best, maybe good when they get a new codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
novembermike 809431 11529859 wrote:
Sometimes you have to just sit back and think about what the lore actually says. Necrons in lore do not run and they are never afraid, but they are quite often confused or slow to react to changing situations. Warriors are also a step below anything else that's a necrontyr in these things. They've been high leadership for a long time but that has represented something different each time.
Neither are my dudes. They have the part of the brain responsible for fear burned out, and then they are lobotomised on top of that. Yet somehow we ain't running around with 10Ld or higher.
Arachnofiend wrote: Having to survive an entire enemy turn to get RP is part of what made the rule so terrible in 8th... Lethality will have to go down a lot for you to see it. I fear the Space Marine matchup in particular.
Reads to me that destroyed units still reanimate because they aren't at their starting strength and all units have to reanimate at the end of your Command phase.
This is the worst copium I've ever seen.
Destroyed units are destroyed. They're not on the field TO reanimate. This ain't something that's going to be erratad.
Let's just hope GW also reduces SM scouts to WS/BS 4+ again/ too. It would even the field a bit.
In the scope of 40K a Space Marine is not that special and shouldn't have rules that puts him 1:1 above all comparible elites.
If scouts were troops costed properly, space marine players would run them, even if they had stats like grots.
Plus since when are necron warriors, the skeleton hordes chaff of w40k, the "comperable elite" to space marines. Would be like expecting a blood knight to have similar stats to a ghoul.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague 809431 11529868 wrote:
This is the worst copium I've ever seen.
Destroyed units are destroyed. They're not on the field TO reanimate. This ain't something that's going to be erratad.
Maybe it is because of the vehicle rules brought back the unit not on the table can still interact with stuff, when it is in a transport. Can't blame people for having hopes, as long as they aren't longer then 1 edition in to the game. Otherwise the book keeping for necron armies would be crazy ton of token for dead units constantly respawning 1-3 wounds each turn. It would be crazy for both regular and tournament games.
Karol wrote: Plus since when are necron warriors, the skeleton hordes chaff of w40k, the "comperable elite" to space marines. Would be like expecting a blood knight to have similar stats to a ghoul.
Have you read the other posts in this thread at all
Warriors have historically been MEQ units and it is only recently that their profile has been chipped away at until they're more comparable to the chaff of other factions
Necrons already have a chaff swarm unit, that's what the canoptek scarab swarm is.
GW has simply learned a lesson over all these editions.
If the troops of a faction are too strong, then it can only be a mini faction. You can only have HQs and support vehicles for your incredibly powerful troops, like Harleys and Custodes.
GW wanted something more from Necrons so they toned down the basic trooper in order to bring layers upon layers of elite units in the faction.
Now one could say "But marines have elite troops and a lot of models!" but is that really true? Their "elite" troops have been a joke since forever, so that they could introduce more kits of "Eliter" models. GW painted itself in a corner with them, since you can't have chaff marines as troops after the way you portray them as poster boys.
Necron faction design has been made hugely better than marine faction design. Yes, they had to detach from the initial idea of the power level of the basic grunt, but honestly it was for the better.
Tyran wrote: Tyranid warriors were famously crap for most of their existence until 9th ed finally made them playable.
I mean they historically were BS4+ T4 Sv4+ models.
You could call them a crap unit, but at the same time a Tyranid Warrior was individually superior to a Marine.
alextroy wrote: Time to call out the elephant in the room. Necron Warriors are crap so that you actually get an army of varied models to play with. Think about how small a Necron army would be if we had:
Necron Warriors - Intercessors with Reanimation Protocols
Immortals - Even better Necron Warriors with a much more badass gun
Deathmarks - Even better Necron Warriors with nasty sniper rifle
Lychguard - Assault Terminators with Reanimation Protocols
And I could go on and on. Get ready to field 1/3 less models in you Necron Armies so that you too can live what other have derisively called the Space Marine Power Fantasy. The only problem is that your army will look nothing like the unstoppable tide of silver that gives Guardsmen nightmares. Instead, it will be the small elite force of Necrons, even smaller that the Space Marines.
Tell me you don't know how the Necron army functioned without telling me you don't know how the Necron army functioned.
When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?
I'll tell you. They did it with very clever design involving Phase Out, which encouraged large numbers of Necrons to be taken even though they had many more elite units available, because if their overall number dropped too low, the army up and left, counting as an automatic loss. Love it or hate it, it was very clever design. You got an elite force that still tended to appear in large numbers because of built in army weaknesses.
So basically I call BS on your assertions, because the past shows that "eliteness with numbers" is totally possible.
Boosykes wrote: A lot of this just comes down to marines having too many units and cannibalizing other armys design space.
Marine players smile and laugh while it happens, I hope they like mirror matches.
Whilst I'd largely agree, pretty sure marines predate necrons, likewise the modern necron was introduced in 3rd, after marines. So they actually cannibalised the marines design space and hence warriors were bopped down to give more of a spread.
I would add that the "endless hordes of silent silver warriors" trope they've used since 3rd doesn't work when they're outnumbered by anything below custodes level, so a weaker horde of part-functioning warriors makes sense to display that theme imo.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think it's too late to go back to the way it was for Necron Warriors.
A lot of people really like the "Tomb Kings in Spaaace". And I don't advocate for taking that away from them, necessarily.
But there's a convenient possibility still around, and that's a Still-C'tan-Empowered-Necron-Army. Leave it open that some of the C'tan are still around, alive and well, and have it that their Necorn Legions are the Oldcrons. Divide the Necrons into the independent Dynasties, self-governing but feeling the effects of age, and then those that are still "C'tan Ascendant", with more of their former power.
Karol wrote: If scouts were troops costed properly, space marine players would run them, even if they had stats like grots.
Plus since when are necron warriors, the skeleton hordes chaff of w40k, the "comperable elite" to space marines. Would be like expecting a blood knight to have similar stats to a ghoul.
Necron warriors have been ws and BS 4 since 1997 in 2nd ed. They were was and bs 4 right up top 8th when they switched to the fixed value stairs, then they went to wsbs 3+. So they've been that good for their entire existence.
In 2nd Ed they were t5 2+ sv.
From 3-4th they were t4 3+sv. They went down to 4+sv in 5th.
Insectum7 wrote: When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?
Because they lacked options largely. I'm sorry but "your core trooper costs less but I have more" is a logical impossibility. A chaos marine was 14 pts base, a warrior was 18. There were usually more warriors because they lacked options to sink the points in and they needed the numbers to avoid phase out.
It was a thematic rule, but often resulted in "oh I'm hiding my unit of warriors behind this hill so you mathematically can't kill them to a low enough number".
I'll happily take worse warriors in return for avoiding Marines +1 who have to hide a quarter of their army.
Insectum7 wrote: When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?
Because they lacked options largely. I'm.sorrt but "your core trooper costs less but I have more" is a logical impossibility. A chaos marine was 14 pts base, a warrior was 18. There were usually more warriors because they lacked options to sink the points in and they needed the numbers to avoid phase out.
It was a thematic rule, but often resulted in "oh I'm hiding my unit of warriors behind this hill so you mathematically can't kill them to a low enough number".
I'll happily take worse warriors in return for avoiding Marines +1 who have to hide a quarter of their army.
Well it's not a "logical impossibility" when that's how it often played out, now is it?
Tyran wrote: Tyranid warriors were famously crap for most of their existence until 9th ed finally made them playable.
I mean they historically were BS4+ T4 Sv4+ models.
You could call them a crap unit, but at the same time a Tyranid Warrior was individually superior to a Marine.
alextroy wrote: Time to call out the elephant in the room. Necron Warriors are crap so that you actually get an army of varied models to play with. Think about how small a Necron army would be if we had:
Necron Warriors - Intercessors with Reanimation Protocols
Immortals - Even better Necron Warriors with a much more badass gun
Deathmarks - Even better Necron Warriors with nasty sniper rifle
Lychguard - Assault Terminators with Reanimation Protocols
And I could go on and on. Get ready to field 1/3 less models in you Necron Armies so that you too can live what other have derisively called the Space Marine Power Fantasy. The only problem is that your army will look nothing like the unstoppable tide of silver that gives Guardsmen nightmares. Instead, it will be the small elite force of Necrons, even smaller that the Space Marines.
Tell me you don't know how the Necron army functioned without telling me you don't know how the Necron army functioned.
When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?
I'll tell you. They did it with very clever design involving Phase Out, which encouraged large numbers of Necrons to be taken even though they had many more elite units available, because if their overall number dropped too low, the army up and left, counting as an automatic loss. Love it or hate it, it was very clever design. You got an elite force that still tended to appear in large numbers because of built in army weaknesses.
So basically I call BS on your assertions, because the past shows that "eliteness with numbers" is totally possible.
At a time when Necrons had barely any units, so it wasn't as much of an impact beyond "oh I might not want to spend all my points on Paraihs and Monoliths".
If Phase Out existed now, it would actively discourage use of many new units that wouldn't be true Necrons (vehicles and canopteks) at worst, and make people feel forced to spend more of their points than they'd otherwise want to on big blocks of infantry compared to more elite units like Lychguard, Deathmarks, Tomb Blades, all the diffeent variant Destroyers that exist these days, etc.
Insectum7 wrote: When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?
Because they lacked options largely. I'm.sorrt but "your core trooper costs less but I have more" is a logical impossibility. A chaos marine was 14 pts base, a warrior was 18. There were usually more warriors because they lacked options to sink the points in and they needed the numbers to avoid phase out.
It was a thematic rule, but often resulted in "oh I'm hiding my unit of warriors behind this hill so you mathematically can't kill them to a low enough number".
I'll happily take worse warriors in return for avoiding Marines +1 who have to hide a quarter of their army.
Well it's not a "logical impossibility" when that's how it often played out, now is it?
No, you don't "get more of them" you get 14 necrons for every 18 marines, basic maths. What you meant to say is "people were forced to take more warriors and play in a gamey manner".
Edit: my point is you're lauding a lack of options and a gak game mechanic.
At a time when Necrons had barely any units, so it wasn't as much of an impact beyond "oh I might not want to spend all my points on Paraihs and Monoliths".
If Phase Out existed now, it would actively discourage use of many new units that wouldn't be true Necrons (vehicles and canopteks) at worst, and make people feel forced to spend more of their points than they'd otherwise want to on big blocks of infantry compared to more elite units like Lychguard, Deathmarks, Tomb Blades, all the diffeent variant Destroyers that exist these days, etc.
I call BS on this as well, since the Necron keyword could be applied to a greater number of units than it is now. Don't forget that Wraiths used to be Necrons and not Canoptek constructs.
No, you don't "get more of them" you get 14 necrons for every 18 marines, basic maths. What you meant to say is "people were forced to take more warriors and play in a gamey manner".
Edit: my point is you're lauding a lack of options and a gak game mechanic.
A great mechanic, because it literally encouraged more models even though they were at a more elite status. But also, adding more options doesn't detract from that mechanic either, since you're just looking for Necron bodies. Did you ever consider the idea of adding options that were lesser than Warriors? So rather than just ratcheting down the entire army roster, you just slipped in a new unit/s at the bottom of the totem pole? Such big thinks these are, I guess.
Insectum7 wrote: [Did you ever consider the idea of adding options that were lesser than Warriors? So rather than just ratcheting down the entire army roster, you just slipped in a new unit/s at the bottom of the totem pole? Such big thinks these are, I guess.
Totalwar1402 wrote: - I am concerned that if they’re bringing stuff like bonus ballistic skill on Heavy weapons if you stand still that somebody might get the bright idea that “oh that means Sisters shooting multi melta and bolters on two plus most of the time. That won’t do.” They might not. But I could see them making that a thing and giving the power armoured infantry the same ballistic skill as a guardsman. Even if they don’t, it’s increasing the lethality across the board.
Just to address this point directly - they're not directly giving a bonus for HEAVY weapons on INFANTRY now, they've just reversed the way the previous penaty worked. Now, rather than get -1 to hit if you move, you get +1 to hit if you don't - but to keep the same to hit values, the base BS for such weapons is being worsened by one.
So, yes, I'd expect INFANTRY Sisters with HEAVY weapons to have a base BS of 4+, but the end result should be the same as it is today - and the same principles should apply across the board (with a possible exception for Guardian HW platforms).
Tyel wrote: Alpha Legion and Iron Warriors maybe a bit more difficult to justify.
For Alpha Legion the death was all part of the plan... twirls mustache
PenitentJake wrote: Who knows the game better- the people who invented it, sustained it for 35 years and already have the next decade planned...
You're feeling very optimistic if you think they've got the next decade planned - I'd be surprised if they have the whole of the 10th's edition cycle planned at this point.
kurhanik wrote: Mildly curious if they are changing wound allocation again. Reanimation protocols specifically notes the possibility of having multiple wounded models in a unit. I'm wondering if they are going to allow you to spread wounds, if its going to be location based (like 7th and closest models), or if that it to just cover some very niche cases where a weapon can wound multiple models in a single unit.
I suspect it simply ties into how PRECISION weapons work - I can't remember if they've been fully revealed yet or not, but if they allow you to target specific models (or characters) in units, then you could end up with multiple wounded models in multi-wound units.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Bruh, they lost LD value AND their hit value, on top of having a worse RP. What are you talking about?
Is it really a worse RP, though? It's certainly a simpler one, with less dice-rolling required, and it seems more useful for multi-wound units than the one in 9th, for example.
+ + +
Completely unrelated question - did we see 40k rules for the new options that turned up in the Necron Kill Team?
Insectum7 wrote: [Did you ever consider the idea of adding options that were lesser than Warriors? So rather than just ratcheting down the entire army roster, you just slipped in a new unit/s at the bottom of the totem pole? Such big thinks these are, I guess.
Nah. That's surely impossible.
Insectum7 wrote:^Well well well . . . what have we here.
What you have there is a card for necron warriors being worse than Marines. They slapped the word "decaying" in front but that's only as relevant as the artwork depicts the warriors in better state than the 40k models.
But yes, you could have immortals as Marines +1, then warriors as Marines and warriors again as Marines -1, such fun, such flavour.
Likewise ironically, you can add in a new shooting unit that is a ranged lychguard equivalent and you'd also regain the same hierarchy.
In reality, it still comes back to phase out was not fun although it was flavourful, the "endless silver tides" being the most expensive core infantry is dumb and like it or not filling the role/statline they have now is more unique than they were before by virtue of not being just another meq army.
Insectum7 wrote: [Did you ever consider the idea of adding options that were lesser than Warriors? So rather than just ratcheting down the entire army roster, you just slipped in a new unit/s at the bottom of the totem pole? Such big thinks these are, I guess.
Nah. That's surely impossible.
Insectum7 wrote:^Well well well . . . what have we here.
What you have there is a card for necron warriors being worse than Marines. They slapped the word "decaying" in front but that's only as relevant as the artwork depicts the warriors in better state than the 40k models.
But yes, you could have immortals as Marines +1, then warriors as Marines and warriors again as Marines -1, such fun, such flavour.
Like the Marine codex. . with it's Marines, it's Marines +.5, Marines +1, Marines +2 and even Marines -1?
Dudeface wrote: Likewise ironically, you can add in a new shooting unit that is a ranged lychguard equivalent and you'd also regain the same hierarchy.
Or you could just add more Marines and pump up the extent of the Marine +1 heirarchy without degrading the units below it. . . . Centurions come to mind.
The idea that Necrons had to be degraded to "make room for more options" is completely unfounded.
Dudeface wrote: In reality, it still comes back to phase out was not fun although it was flavourful, the "endless silver tides" being the most expensive core infantry is dumb and like it or not filling the role/statline they have now is more unique than they were before by virtue of not being just another meq army.
I'd argue that Necrons are less unique now than they were before. They're sorta more like Robot Eldar now. Better-than-Marine-core-troop, with such a unique rule as Phase Out, coupled with their specific strengths and weaknesses, made them far more unique as a faction than they are now.
Someone with a brain. One could even call it an impressive opening up of design space, IF handled with care.
Granted IF they don't just replace NW due to being cheaper hypothethical as has happened with CSM and cultists. Granted CSM sucking in all versions, and not just slaanesh, and cultists doing so too but not demanding premium pay in points made it anyways a forgone conclusion.
One could also take a page from HH but that would require a functional force org, and grant them the "support Unit" special rule. Or one could allow reanimation protocol to reanimate at a lower quality for more reanimated bodies.
Alas, just as CSM get dark pacts for everyone and their mother on the middle of the battlefield despite such pacts often requiring a lot of time in it's depicitons, you will not get something sensible either.
Like the Marine codex. . with it's Marines, it's Marines +.5, Marines +1, Marines +2 and even Marines -1?
Which is something about Marines the vast majority roll their eyes at and disagree with.
Or you could just add more Marines and pump up the extent of the Marine +1 heirarchy without degrading the units below it. . . . Centurions come to mind.
The idea that Necrons had to be degraded to "make room for more options" is completely unfounded.
Again, how many people consider centurions etc a good design choice? You're right they could have introduced more canoptek etc units to expand stat ranges and roles. But they didn't, they kept the necrons the core factor of the necron army. They also haven't degraded the necron army, they've degraded warriors, immortals haven't really changed much.
I'd argue that Necrons are less unique now than they were before. They're sorta more like Robot Eldar now. Better-than-Marine-core-troop, with such a unique rule as Phase Out, coupled with their specific strengths and weaknesses, made them far more unique as a faction than they are now.
When your argument for the army having evolved differently is "but do it like marines instead", it doesn't differentiate them. A warrior was a marine that got back up, was slower in melee and had bolters with a special rule. We're clearly not going to agree on this, but as you respect the older editions way more than where the game is now, at least you can keep playing those rules.
I see a lot about leadership and if warriors got worse or better posts, but only a few about the new reanimation protocols.
At first look they feel a lot worse. After an opponent destroys some models I usually get some of them back, even when rolling for Skorpekhs. Now you might get 1 wound back on one of them? Offcourse you used to have a chance of gettting nothing back and now you always get at least 1 wound, but on average it feels like you got a lot more back with the old reanimation protocols. To really know I first have to play a few games, but the feeling right now isn't too good about the reanimations, certainly because it looks like living metal is gone now.
MorglumNecksnapper wrote: I see a lot about leadership and if warriors got worse or better posts, but only a few about the new reanimation protocols.
At first look they feel a lot worse. After an opponent destroys some models I usually get some of them back, even when rolling for Skorpekhs. Now you might get 1 wound back on one of them? Offcourse you used to have a chance of gettting nothing back and now you always get at least 1 wound, but on average it feels like you got a lot more back with the old reanimation protocols. To really know I first have to play a few games, but the feeling right now isn't too good about the reanimations, certainly because it looks like living metal is gone now.
In a less lethal game (in theory) you will lose fewer so need to resurrect fewer.
At a time when Necrons had barely any units, so it wasn't as much of an impact beyond "oh I might not want to spend all my points on Paraihs and Monoliths".
If Phase Out existed now, it would actively discourage use of many new units that wouldn't be true Necrons (vehicles and canopteks) at worst, and make people feel forced to spend more of their points than they'd otherwise want to on big blocks of infantry compared to more elite units like Lychguard, Deathmarks, Tomb Blades, all the diffeent variant Destroyers that exist these days, etc.
I call BS on this as well, since the Necron keyword could be applied to a greater number of units than it is now. Don't forget that Wraiths used to be Necrons and not Canoptek constructs.
Don't forget they added a new Destroyer unit based on the Wraiths of old ?♀️
MorglumNecksnapper wrote: I see a lot about leadership and if warriors got worse or better posts, but only a few about the new reanimation protocols.
At first look they feel a lot worse. After an opponent destroys some models I usually get some of them back, even when rolling for Skorpekhs. Now you might get 1 wound back on one of them? Offcourse you used to have a chance of gettting nothing back and now you always get at least 1 wound, but on average it feels like you got a lot more back with the old reanimation protocols. To really know I first have to play a few games, but the feeling right now isn't too good about the reanimations, certainly because it looks like living metal is gone now.
In a less lethal game (in theory) you will lose fewer so need to resurrect fewer.
This RP technically aims to more of a tide approach and less to a block approach. You should send one unit forward, have it take damage and go behind cover while other units go forward. Then the units after a couple of turns get back into the fight. It kinds of ties better with the necron flavor than just the feel no pain like effect it had previously, but its usefulness depends on a lot on how easy it will be to completely wipe out the unit.
No, they explained (repeatedly, even after it was pointed out) how to make a critical wound, not what it is. Critical wounds are not unrelated to mortal wounds. In the first place Critical Wounds can become Mortal wounds, in the second place, all wounds are at least tangentially related and are not "unrelated".
You're right, a critical wound is an existentialist concept that, once fully understood, allows you to better foreshadow probability via the quantum plane.
Or, it's a term for "wounds on X defaulting to 6" and you're complicating the everything feth out of an obvious concept in some vain effort to become a leading philosopher of our time.
Or you're just making adhoms out of personal animus or embarassment. Wondering how they're going to implement a new mechanic that appears to replace at least two previous ones in the design of a toy soldiers game isn't all that philosophical.
Honestly no embarrassment at all, what mechanics do you think it replaces? As a hint, it doesn't replace anything.
Well just off the top of my head, I've already wondered if it would be part of a replacement for Smite Spam from Thousand Sons, and Poison for Drukhari among others. Anti-X causes critical wounds. It could easily be pushed into a sniper mechanic which was already similar to poison.
Arachnofiend wrote: Warriors have historically been MEQ units and it is only recently that their profile has been chipped away at until they're more comparable to the chaff of other factions
That's not strictly true.
Sv4+ Necrons have been around for 12 years. They were MEQs for 9 years. So, historically, Necron Warriors have been T4 Sv4+ for longer than they were T4 Sv3+ (and before that, in 2nd Ed, they were something different altogether).
Lord Damocles wrote: It's funny that only now, 10 editions in, Chaos Marines being killed by their own weapons is apparently a well known thing
Sadly, they like to fix things that aren't broke. Once upon a time, they gave you a set of rules to make a "modern" fallen chapter from the SM Codex that included overheating plasma, or one of the Legions that had the "good" plasma.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Necrons look much better this time round from that limited snapshot.
Reanimation Protocols sounds like it could be first up for the nerf-bat. Warp the Warriors to the Monolith on the objective, get D3+3 wounds back. Everything and their sister gets their own apothecary every turn in an edition they're trying to tone down lethality in might be a bit of a tough balance to strike early on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Surely it wouldn't be "mixed" if there's a character joined to the unit. Their Leadership would just be the character's leadership until that character died (or left, even assuming characters can leave units).
I think I saw it mentioned that they're locked into the unit they join at Deployment - can't leave, can't join something else even if the rest of the original unit is dead.
kurhanik wrote: Mildly curious if they are changing wound allocation again. Reanimation protocols specifically notes the possibility of having multiple wounded models in a unit.
It actually doesn't.
It says to first fully heal all wounded models, then revive dead models with one wound, and if there's any RP points left heal that revived model.
So if you have three RP points for a unit of 2 dead destroyers and one destroyer on 2 wound, you would first fully heal the wounded destroyer with 1 point and revive one of them with 2 points.
??
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wonder if characters will still count as a separate unit when joined for this purpose. As noted in the article -- everything heals. Overlords, Monoliths, etc.
Isn't it currently possible but extremely highly unlikely to have that happen now? Some sort of scenario where you're not able to choose wound allocation, and forced allocation goes to a non-wounded model? Its probably somewhere in the You Make Da Call forum.
alextroy wrote: Time to call out the elephant in the room. Necron Warriors are crap so that you actually get an army of varied models to play with. Think about how small a Necron army would be if we had:
Necron Warriors - Intercessors with Reanimation Protocols
Immortals - Even better Necron Warriors with a much more badass gun
Deathmarks - Even better Necron Warriors with nasty sniper rifle
Lychguard - Assault Terminators with Reanimation Protocols
And I could go on and on. Get ready to field 1/3 less models in you Necron Armies so that you too can live what other have derisively called the Space Marine Power Fantasy. The only problem is that your army will look nothing like the unstoppable tide of silver that gives Guardsmen nightmares. Instead, it will be the small elite force of Necrons, even smaller that the Space Marines.
I am still confused as to why elite troops are wholly unacceptable for Necrons because their range was expanded, yet SMs, whose range was expanded far more, got to have stronger troops as a result.
Surely if we follow the logic of Necrons, SM troops should all have 1 wound, WS4+/BS4+, 4+ saves, and maybe get +1 to hit if a Chaplain or Lieutenant joins them?
Somehow I don't think that would result in SM players here rejoicing that they can field more units and that more design space was opened as a result.
vipoid wrote: "It's a new edition so all the prior buffs to Marines and nerfs to non-Marines no longer count, even though the new rules are building on those same buffs and nerfs."
More like, "Marines were ass for most of 9th edition even with their buffed stats, what exactly are you whining about?"
Ah yes, Marines were ass for most of 9th...which is why they have something ridiculous like 218 tournament placings this edition....you know...more than any other faction by a country mile.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Bruh, they lost LD value AND their hit value, on top of having a worse RP. What are you talking about?
Does this make them bad? That's going to depend on points and the new meta but base stats aren't the only thing that makes a unit good or bad.
That whistling sound you hear is the point flying violently over your head. Necron players are upset that Warriors went from being Marine equivalents to chaff and Immortals went from Marines +1 (+2 in my opinion) to weaker than Marines over the space of 6-7 editions. Argue fluff to your hearts content, argue points to your hearts content, at least understand why they are upset.
Insectum7 wrote: Feel free to call me whatever you want. I lament the loss of a faction I used to love. What continues to be relevant is how the trend may simply continue, and it's not just Necrons that get effected.
It's fun trying to have these discussions with people who buy into whatever GW says hook, line and sinker, instantly believing that new = better.
As opposed to people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad.
Where have I seen that dynamic before....
And to think all I had the audacity to do is disagree with the premise of a weird chart. feth me, right?
Because you weren't disagreeing with the chart, you were interpreting it in a manor in which it was clearly not meant to be interpreted. Arguing for the sake of arguing. The graph shows the downward trajectory of Necron Warriors/immortals when compared against Marines in a point for point basis. Saying "Ah yes but the core rules have changed" in no way invalidates the graph or makes it a "Weird chart" you just choose to interpret it a completely different way just to make a contradictory retort.
Tyran wrote: Sure, but everyone is being nerfed in that way.
Marines lost ATSKNF, Synapse is no longer immunity, vehicles and monsters have to take break tests now. There is a blatant design intent that everyone has to care about LD.
I'll bet you a Morkanaut that it won't impact Marines as much as most everyone else. And i'll go even further and bet that Factions like Orkz who cared a lot about LD this edition will still have issues with it.
Have you read the other posts in this thread at all
Warriors have historically been MEQ units and it is only recently that their profile has been chipped away at until they're more comparable to the chaff of other factions
Necrons already have a chaff swarm unit, that's what the canoptek scarab swarm is.
I know 8th and I know 9th. And 8th was a design paradigma shift. Being unhappy about undead style egyptian necron is similar to not accepting the design paradigma of primaris being a thing. One can of course do it, but one day GW is going to removed all old marine rule set models. In fact necron have it better then marines. Because necron lore stayed more or less the same. While primaris lore has more then a few head scratchers, even after 2 editions of GW writing the lore for them.
I am still confused as to why elite troops are wholly unacceptable for Necrons because their range was expanded, yet SMs, whose range was expanded far more, got to have stronger troops as a result.
Surely if we follow the logic of Necrons, SM troops should all have 1 wound, WS4+/BS4+, 4+ saves, and maybe get +1 to hit if a Chaplain or Lieutenant joins them?
Somehow I don't think that would result in SM players here rejoicing that they can field more units and that more design space was opened as a result.
Because unless a space marine troop option is one of three things. Ultra cheap, like scout once were, has some very good special rule, one which matters for the given rule set and meta or borders or crosses the line of being an actual elite choice, the space marine player does not have a free slot for such a troop option, in his army. Marine units have to be stronger, because they don't the speed, the fire power etc to beat all other armies, save for those short time at the end of an edition, Otherwise marine armies turn in to car parks, get focused in to a build missed by GW or they share the fate of glorious marine armies like the Imperial Fists, where even getting buffed doctrines and 200-250pts free doesn't help them with reaching 35% win rates.
But tell you what, if you want to go full historical, lets do it. Necron wariors get their old stats adapted in to 10th ed. Along side the rules they had etc. They can even keep the new stuff they got. We will just bring back Phase Out and I will get my 5th GK rule set, so I can enjoy my army in a state when it was fun to play.
Arachnofiend wrote: Having to survive an entire enemy turn to get RP is part of what made the rule so terrible in 8th... Lethality will have to go down a lot for you to see it. I fear the Space Marine matchup in particular.
Reads to me that destroyed units still reanimate because they aren't at their starting strength and all units have to reanimate at the end of your Command phase.
This is the worst copium I've ever seen.
Destroyed units are destroyed. They're not on the field TO reanimate. This ain't something that's going to be erratad.
Couple of things here champ:
First its not copium, I don't care for the changes to my beloved army. No amount of buzzwords are going to make my concerns disappear.
Second show me in the 10e rules where it says destroyed Necron units can't reanimate. Logically they wouldn't but the wording is bad.
Third I never said errata'd, I said elaborated on. With the current information we have available it's a concern. I'm not alone in the concern that poor wording can and will be exploited. Hopefully the core rules will define what is and is not resurrect-able, I'm hopeful but not expecting it.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Bruh, they lost LD value AND their hit value, on top of having a worse RP. What are you talking about?
Is it really a worse RP, though? It's certainly a simpler one, with less dice-rolling required, and it seems more useful for multi-wound units than the one in 9th, for example.
You'd think it was more useful at first glance, but you only get it during your Command Phase. That means unit Wipeout over the course of the turn = no rolling, compared to right now where you'd have to kill them all in one attack before rolling.
alextroy wrote: Time to call out the elephant in the room. Necron Warriors are crap so that you actually get an army of varied models to play with. Think about how small a Necron army would be if we had:
Necron Warriors - Intercessors with Reanimation Protocols
Immortals - Even better Necron Warriors with a much more badass gun
Deathmarks - Even better Necron Warriors with nasty sniper rifle
Lychguard - Assault Terminators with Reanimation Protocols
And I could go on and on. Get ready to field 1/3 less models in you Necron Armies so that you too can live what other have derisively called the Space Marine Power Fantasy. The only problem is that your army will look nothing like the unstoppable tide of silver that gives Guardsmen nightmares. Instead, it will be the small elite force of Necrons, even smaller that the Space Marines.
I am still confused as to why elite troops are wholly unacceptable for Necrons because their range was expanded, yet SMs, whose range was expanded far more, got to have stronger troops as a result.
Surely if we follow the logic of Necrons, SM troops should all have 1 wound, WS4+/BS4+, 4+ saves, and maybe get +1 to hit if a Chaplain or Lieutenant joins them?
Somehow I don't think that would result in SM players here rejoicing that they can field more units and that more design space was opened as a result.
Because you can't have the faceless silver tide if the basic line trooper is more expensive than a Space Marine. It only worked in the past because the model range was very small and the phase out told you to take lots of Infantry models or lose every game.
When they expanded the range, they also decreased the stats on the Warrior to make it a less expensive model. That allowed for more models on the table, use of the expanded range of models, and the removal of the phase out rule. As noted, that was 12 years ago, over half the lifespan of the Necron army. Those good old days of being a Space Marine plus really were a long time ago.
Breton wrote: Reanimation Protocols sounds like it could be first up for the nerf-bat. Warp the Warriors to the Monolith on the objective, get D3+3 wounds back. Everything and their sister gets their own apothecary every turn in an edition they're trying to tone down lethality in might be a bit of a tough balance to strike early on.
You must be joking. There's no way lethality has gone down so much that a rule that requires the unit to survive the opponent's entire turn before getting d3 wounds back is broken. I fully expect to have turns where I roll no RP because everything that got shot at died.
Breton wrote: Well just off the top of my head, I've already wondered if it would be part of a replacement for Smite Spam from Thousand Sons, and Poison for Drukhari among others. Anti-X causes critical wounds. It could easily be pushed into a sniper mechanic which was already similar to poison.
Critical Wounds will be involved if someone uses a lot of models with Smite, if they use the "Focused witchfire" version of it, given that has the DEVASTATING WOUNDS property, transforming Critical Wounds (rolls of a 6, in this case) into Mortal Wounds. Whether Thousand Sons Sorcerers end up with Smite is another matter entirely, of course.
I would imagine Poison is likely to be replaced by ANTI-INFANTRY X, and may even get ANTI-MONSTER X as well. In either case, that's just fixing the to-wound rolls, but I doubt it gets combo'd with DEVASTATING WOUNDS too often.
Sniper probably gets a combination of PRECISE and DEVASTATING WOUNDS, but I doubt they generally get anything to increase the range that generates Critical Wounds - though the Vindicare might get an exception to that.
But tell you what, if you want to go full historical, lets do it. Necron wariors get their old stats adapted in to 10th ed. Along side the rules they had etc. They can even keep the new stuff they got. We will just bring back Phase Out and I will get my 5th GK rule set, so I can enjoy my army in a state when it was fun to play.
OMG, yes please! Let's ditch these 10th edition rules and all go back to 5th. I miss my blast templates and scatter dice so much
(Also, old style morale)
(Also also, firing arcs and hull facing)
(No, I'm not being sarcastic, I legit miss these things)
JNAProductions wrote: Multiple wounds with crap save in editions defined by AP breakpoints were just crap wounds.
As for GW's vision of the Necrons, at their inception there were the uber mysterious and uber powerful uber ancient race. But nowadays their pov has been quite explored.
Back then a Necron warrior was a mysterious killing machine, now we now a Necron warrior is a lobotomized civilian in a body that is kinda falling apart under 65 million years of entropy.
The Necrons have gained character, but it cost them mysticism and creed.
It also cost the universe a good mystery and some unknowability. But that's Ward for you, bad rules, bad fluff, and fascism apologia.
But tell you what, if you want to go full historical, lets do it. Necron wariors get their old stats adapted in to 10th ed. Along side the rules they had etc. They can even keep the new stuff they got. We will just bring back Phase Out and I will get my 5th GK rule set, so I can enjoy my army in a state when it was fun to play.
OMG, yes please! Let's ditch these 10th edition rules and all go back to 5th. I miss my blast templates and scatter dice so much
(Also, old style morale)
(Also also, firing arcs and hull facing)
(No, I'm not being sarcastic, I legit miss these things)
Yeah, this is very much 'don't threaten me with a good time' territory.
Seriously, Karol, if you want to go back to 5th edition I'd be good with that. GKs aren't the only army that haven't been as fun since.
I'm not sure Newcron stuff has been the best (mainly because Necrons are all meant to be insane, but this rarely seems to come across mechanically or really in the fluff).
But Oldcron fluff is definitely marmite. If you liked it I guess it was cool. If you didn't it was about as welcome as Primaris.
"Oh that established 40k mystery? Yeah, turns out the C'tan did it."
"What about this one?" "Also C'tan."
And... "C'tan. C'tan. C'tan C'tan C'tan C'tan. Get stuffed Chaos, there's a new set of Gods now, with models and everything."
Not really surprised GW did the whole "I have to go now, my people need me to become Pokémon."
Necron background for me is objectively better. From a dull as dishwater “all mindless automata driven by like…2 Stargods” to a glimpse at perhaps the fate of all sentient species in the Galaxy.
And the two are not mutually exclusive. We know their memories are now a form of programming. We known for a time, The Silent King had overriding command protocols, which we’re told he chose to destroy having seen how he failed his entire species.
In the original, we’re told the C’Tan were rendered all but extinct thanks to The Deceiver persuading three others to join him in snacking on their contemporaries.
We’re now told the Necrons turned their weapons and science against the C’Tan, shattering them.
Both of those could be completely true, after a fashion. What better way to arrange the Smorgasbord, avoid being consumed yourself, and ensure your former slaves are utterly convinced you’ve been eradicated than giving them the tools to prep your dinner?
Necron background for me is objectively better. From a dull as dishwater “all mindless automata driven by like…2 Stargods” to a glimpse at perhaps the fate of all sentient species in the Galaxy.
4 Stargods, at least. Nightbringer, Deciever, Dragon, Outsider. It also had a glimpse of the fate of sentient species. Enslaved food for the C'tan. Cattle in a galaxy permanently sealed off from the warp. One of their proposed superheavies for Epic was called the Abbotior, eg. Slaughterhouse.
Or you could just add more Marines and pump up the extent of the Marine +1 heirarchy without degrading the units below it. . . . Centurions come to mind.
The idea that Necrons had to be degraded to "make room for more options" is completely unfounded.
Again, how many people consider centurions etc a good design choice? You're right they could have introduced more canoptek etc units to expand stat ranges and roles. But they didn't, they kept the necrons the core factor of the necron army. They also haven't degraded the necron army, they've degraded warriors, immortals haven't really changed much.
Re: Centurions, it doesn't matter whether you like them or not, what's clear is that they are an example of an army "expanding upwards". Obliterators are another fine example.
Re: Immortals, Even if they had remained the same while other units simply got better, it remains a contextual degradation. The Shuriken Catapult from 3rd through 8th is a prime example of that phenomena. What should be incontrovertible is that Marines have inflated in value in comparison, which is what my chart focuses on. Immortals used to be "worth" nearly 2 Tactical Marines. That has been cut in half.
In addition to Warriors and Immortals, Flayed Ones, Destroyers, Monoliths, have all been knocked down a notch or two. And Pariahs don't even exist anymore.
I'd argue that Necrons are less unique now than they were before. They're sorta more like Robot Eldar now. Better-than-Marine-core-troop, with such a unique rule as Phase Out, coupled with their specific strengths and weaknesses, made them far more unique as a faction than they are now.
When your argument for the army having evolved differently is "but do it like marines instead", it doesn't differentiate them. A warrior was a marine that got back up, was slower in melee and had bolters with a special rule. We're clearly not going to agree on this, but as you respect the older editions way more than where the game is now, at least you can keep playing those rules.
You're completely daft if you think Necrons were just "Marines that got back up, etc". As an army they played very differently. Not only as the player of Necrons, but playing against them. Similar base stats, totally different build/play experience.
In short, your attempted points about the limits of potential expansion are plainly false in light of the possibilities displayed in other armies, but also you appear to be unqualified to even discuss Necrons if you're just going to reduce them to "Marines that got back up".
The devil, as always, is in the detail though, and where GW has always consistently fallen over is with the Codices.
I know you said more than this in this post (and it was a good one), I wanna focus on this point because its super interesting to me. Every single gamer who has more than one edition of this game under their belt knows that the codices are where the game collapses. The general tenor tends to be that since they've been doing indexhammer, the edition release is when the game is most fun. Yet gaming groups will actively play a worse product and pay for it once the codices start rolling out... and begrudge the game for it.
It's a very particular 40k thing. I dont know why it is.
Our group's going to stick with release rules (if they're fun). I think more people should try to take control of the game for themselves in similar ways. I know this is a bit of a marginal or tangential take, but I'm fascinated with the ways 40k players react to this game. It's totally unique. In one sense I understand that you can't subdivide play with as many different versions of the game as their are gaming clubs/groups, and on a forum like dakka we all have to be speaking the same game language. At the same time though, I've been in this game long enough to see people play games with junk rules, 20 pounds of books, and fielding models they never wanted to take. Aint good.
But tell you what, if you want to go full historical, lets do it. Necron wariors get their old stats adapted in to 10th ed. Along side the rules they had etc. They can even keep the new stuff they got. We will just bring back Phase Out and I will get my 5th GK rule set, so I can enjoy my army in a state when it was fun to play.
OMG, yes please! Let's ditch these 10th edition rules and all go back to 5th. I miss my blast templates and scatter dice so much
(Also, old style morale)
(Also also, firing arcs and hull facing)
(No, I'm not being sarcastic, I legit miss these things)
Breton wrote: Reanimation Protocols sounds like it could be first up for the nerf-bat. Warp the Warriors to the Monolith on the objective, get D3+3 wounds back. Everything and their sister gets their own apothecary every turn in an edition they're trying to tone down lethality in might be a bit of a tough balance to strike early on.
You must be joking. There's no way lethality has gone down so much that a rule that requires the unit to survive the opponent's entire turn before getting d3 wounds back is broken. I fully expect to have turns where I roll no RP because everything that got shot at died.
Other people in here have posited that melee will now take multiple turns. Plus all the drops in Armor Piercing, changes to Twin Link. 10 Assault Intercessors vs 10 Warriors - (assuming what we know changed and what we assume won't are true) 40 attacks, 25ish hits, 12 and a halfish wounds, 4ish armor saves. D3+3 Reanimations. Now do that on 5 Objectives at once. 10 regular intercessors 20 shots, 15ish hits, 7.5ish wounds, 2ish saves, 5-6 dead, D3+3 reanimations. D3+3 = Average 4.5 Kill 7.5, reanimate 4.5 net loss 3 per turn - and that's before Marine losses and extra warrior models due to points differentials.
As I said, it COULD be - we're still making semi-educated guesses in lethality and support units. Once you get into Bobby G, Abby, and (assumedly) a host of other characters/monsters/big-bads the calculus is going to change quite a bit as well. Guilliman and Abby can ginsu 10 warriors at a time it looks like. Of course Necrons will also have their Big Bads.
Breton wrote: Well just off the top of my head, I've already wondered if it would be part of a replacement for Smite Spam from Thousand Sons, and Poison for Drukhari among others. Anti-X causes critical wounds. It could easily be pushed into a sniper mechanic which was already similar to poison.
Critical Wounds will be involved if someone uses a lot of models with Smite, if they use the "Focused witchfire" version of it, given that has the DEVASTATING WOUNDS property, transforming Critical Wounds (rolls of a 6, in this case) into Mortal Wounds. Whether Thousand Sons Sorcerers end up with Smite is another matter entirely, of course.
I would imagine Poison is likely to be replaced by ANTI-INFANTRY X, and may even get ANTI-MONSTER X as well. In either case, that's just fixing the to-wound rolls, but I doubt it gets combo'd with DEVASTATING WOUNDS too often.
Anti-X creates Critical Wounds. So its already involving Critical Wounds - the thing I was wondering about that seems to have gotten your shorts in a twist. Now lets assume you're right and it doesn't get combo'd with Devastating Wounds too often - and it probably won't - that still implies Critical Wounds are for more than combo'ing wiht Devastating Wounds. Why are poison Wounds Critical if Critical Wounds don't do anything without Devastating Wounds? Gee if only some of us had been wondering about that sort of thing, instead of repeatedly regurgitating HOW instead of WHAT
Sniper probably gets a combination of PRECISE and DEVASTATING WOUNDS, but I doubt they generally get anything to increase the range that generates Critical Wounds - though the Vindicare might get an exception to that.
Not the way I roll D3's and D4's But yeah, I was mostly doing off the cuff and estimates and made it half to come to the end with a whole number. 2/3 of 40 isn't exactly 25 either.
JNAProductions wrote: A Critical Wound is a success regardless of the normal required number.
It is also a keyword that other effects may reference.
To our knowledge right now, it doesn’t do anything else on its own.
Yeah, I'm not sure what's so difficult about this concept, but that's the part a few of us are wondering about.
1) They made an entirely new category of wounds aka: Critical
2) There multiple parallel paths to a Critical Wound (Natural 6, other special rules like Anti-X)
3) We know Devastating Wounds interacts with Critical Wounds to become an pre-existing category of wounds - Mortal.
4) Even people trying to confuse and conflate How instead of What on Critical Wounds is assuming Devastating Wounds is/will not be the only interaction with Critical Wounds.
5) I'm assuming most of us don't think GW would be so wasteful to create this new tier of wounds in a new edition to "trim the bloat" only to have it rarely do anything. They can be dumb, but rarely that dumb.
6) Just because they haven't leaked a rulebook definition of Critical Wounds (and what, if anything, they do on their own) doesn't mean there isn't one
Mortal Wounds invalidate (potentially) all saves. Will Critical Wounds do anything at all? invalidate USR saves like Feel No Pain? Invalidate Armor saves but not FNP and true invulns(thus creating three "tiers" of saves as well Armor-USR-Invuln)? Who knows, but it feels like the middle tier of wounds would/could slot in there somewhere.
Yeah, I'd hope Immortals are in the 2w 3+ T5 range with solid guns and enough attacks that if you buff them they might actually hurt things (so 2-3 at S5 WS 3+).
Hecaton wrote: We could have our cake and eat it too if Immortals are battleline and are about on par with a Primaris marine in terms of durability and firepower.
I'm guessing some people here would ree at that idea though.
That doesn't solve the degradation of Warriors at all.
In short, your attempted points about the limits of potential expansion are plainly false in light of the possibilities displayed in other armies, but also you appear to be unqualified to even discuss Necrons if you're just going to reduce them to "Marines that got back up".
I had a 3k necron army between 3rd & 4th, I got rid of them because most of my games involved marines and it became meq vs meq all the time. Your experience clearly varies and you obvious prefer those earlier rules, you'd get your armour facing back and all that other stuff your complain about not being in the game, just go play it and be happier.
5) I'm assuming most of us don't think GW would be so wasteful to create this new tier of wounds in a new edition to "trim the bloat" only to have it rarely do anything. They can be dumb, but rarely that dumb.
That is literally where the other 99.9% of the population disagree, to the vast majority it is simply a term/keyword for a wound roll that cannot fail.
JNAProductions wrote: A Critical Wound is a success regardless of the normal required number.
It is also a keyword that other effects may reference.
To our knowledge right now, it doesn’t do anything else on its own.
Yeah, I'm not sure what's so difficult about this concept, but that's the part a few of us are wondering about.
1) They made an entirely new category of wounds aka: Critical
2) There multiple parallel paths to a Critical Wound (Natural 6, other special rules like Anti-X)
3) We know Devastating Wounds interacts with Critical Wounds to become an pre-existing category of wounds - Mortal.
4) Even people trying to confuse and conflate How instead of What on Critical Wounds is assuming Devastating Wounds is/will not be the only interaction with Critical Wounds.
5) I'm assuming most of us don't think GW would be so wasteful to create this new tier of wounds in a new edition to "trim the bloat" only to have it rarely do anything. They can be dumb, but rarely that dumb.
6) Just because they haven't leaked a rulebook definition of Critical Wounds (and what, if anything, they do on their own) doesn't mean there isn't one
Mortal Wounds invalidate (potentially) all saves. Will Critical Wounds do anything at all? invalidate USR saves like Feel No Pain? Invalidate Armor saves but not FNP and true invulns(thus creating three "tiers" of saves as well Armor-USR-Invuln)? Who knows, but it feels like the middle tier of wounds would/could slot in there somewhere.
There's no possible answer any of us can give to those questions but I'd lean towards critical wounds being a simple shorthand to hang other rules from and not doing anything on their own. I think that if they did anything else GW would have spoiled that already.
Nobody was asked to - all I said was I wanted to know what they were - what else was coming out of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dominuschao wrote: No wishlisting for the halcyon days of the pariah's? I always thought those were a cool concept.
One of the issues they're running into with Tomb Kings in Space is that they've started out with skeletons in heavy armor and shields. Its certainly possible and an interesting take on things, but a lot of the things Tomb Kings on Sand got don't necessarily apply to Tomb Kings in Space. On Sand their WBB was all tied in a bow with ItP, crumble, low LD, etc. I think they're still looking for the cycle there on Necrons.
Breton wrote: Anti-X creates Critical Wounds. So its already involving Critical Wounds - the thing I was wondering about that seems to have gotten your shorts in a twist. Now lets assume you're right and it doesn't get combo'd with Devastating Wounds too often - and it probably won't - that still implies Critical Wounds are for more than combo'ing wiht Devastating Wounds. Why are poison Wounds Critical if Critical Wounds don't do anything without Devastating Wounds? Gee if only some of us had been wondering about that sort of thing, instead of repeatedly regurgitating HOW instead of WHAT.
Not sure why you think there's anything wrong with my shorts, but please get your mind out of my clothing. You posited some scenarios, I proposed some thoughts as to how they may shake out.
I don't expect Critical Wounds to be anything more than a shorthand term for "this attack always wounds on X", where X defaults to 6+ but can be modified. I don't seem them affecting saves, or anything like that. I think they're just going to be a shorthand term that other rules can interact with.
What they do do is allow the replacement of all bits of rules that say "On a 6 to wound" - and allow for a bit more flexibility in those rules if a character say, can apply something to widen the range on which a Critical Wound occurs for that unit. Take a look through any 9th ed material you've got - any time a rule relies on "On a X to wound", you'll probably see that changed to "On a Critical Wound" in 10th, assuming the rule in question carries across.
We've seen something similar with the use of LETHAL HITS on the previewed Necron Gauss weapons, giving those weapons back an ability that had gone missing in the last couple of editions.
Breton wrote: Anti-X creates Critical Wounds. So its already involving Critical Wounds - the thing I was wondering about that seems to have gotten your shorts in a twist. Now lets assume you're right and it doesn't get combo'd with Devastating Wounds too often - and it probably won't - that still implies Critical Wounds are for more than combo'ing wiht Devastating Wounds. Why are poison Wounds Critical if Critical Wounds don't do anything without Devastating Wounds? Gee if only some of us had been wondering about that sort of thing, instead of repeatedly regurgitating HOW instead of WHAT.
Not sure why you think there's anything wrong with my shorts, but please get your mind out of my clothing. You posited some scenarios, I proposed some thoughts as to how they may shake out.
I don't expect Critical Wounds to be anything more than a shorthand term for "this attack always wounds on X", where X defaults to 6+ but can be modified. I don't seem them affecting saves, or anything like that. I think they're just going to be a shorthand term that other rules can interact with.
What they do do is allow the replacement of all bits of rules that say "On a 6 to wound" - and allow for a bit more flexibility in those rules if a character say, can apply something to widen the range on which a Critical Wound occurs for that unit. Take a look through any 9th ed material you've got - any time a rule relies on "On a X to wound", you'll probably see that changed to "On a Critical Wound" in 10th, assuming the rule in question carries across.
We've seen something similar with the use of LETHAL HITS on the previewed Necron Gauss weapons, giving those weapons back an ability that had gone missing in the last couple of editions.
Excellent summary, there's no davinci code going on, it's simply a shorthand term to ease rules through.
Breton wrote: Anti-X creates Critical Wounds. So its already involving Critical Wounds - the thing I was wondering about that seems to have gotten your shorts in a twist. Now lets assume you're right and it doesn't get combo'd with Devastating Wounds too often - and it probably won't - that still implies Critical Wounds are for more than combo'ing wiht Devastating Wounds. Why are poison Wounds Critical if Critical Wounds don't do anything without Devastating Wounds? Gee if only some of us had been wondering about that sort of thing, instead of repeatedly regurgitating HOW instead of WHAT.
Not sure why you think there's anything wrong with my shorts, but please get your mind out of my clothing. You posited some scenarios, I proposed some thoughts as to how they may shake out.
I don't expect Critical Wounds to be anything more than a shorthand term for "this attack always wounds on X", where X defaults to 6+ but can be modified. I don't seem them affecting saves, or anything like that. I think they're just going to be a shorthand term that other rules can interact with.
What they do do is allow the replacement of all bits of rules that say "On a 6 to wound" - and allow for a bit more flexibility in those rules if a character say, can apply something to widen the range on which a Critical Wound occurs for that unit. Take a look through any 9th ed material you've got - any time a rule relies on "On a X to wound", you'll probably see that changed to "On a Critical Wound" in 10th, assuming the rule in question carries across.
We've seen something similar with the use of LETHAL HITS on the previewed Necron Gauss weapons, giving those weapons back an ability that had gone missing in the last couple of editions.
Except there's no (readily apparent) reason to make Anti-X wounds Critical Wounds when they could just be made Wounds. We pretty much have to assume there's more to it than Devastating Wounds Combos. Most editions introduce or reintroduce a mechanic that becomes the "test bed" of the edition - I think it's Critical Wounds. Because they're not hyping it, I'm guessing its either more appropriate for the codex releases or I'm wrong. But then I still have to wonder why they bothered to make Critical Wound in the first place. Anti-X/Poison and "6's always succeed" didn't need it, nor did Critically Devastating Wounds/Rending - we already had that USR too.
I don't doubt there will be abilities other than DEVASTATING WOUNDS - either on weapons, units, or even detachment/factions - that key off Critical Wounds. We just haven't seen them yet, though we may get exposed to more of them as the Faction preview cycle rolls on.
And we didn't have a Rending USR coming into 10th - USRs were killed in the bonfire that was the end of 7th, unfortunately. Critical Wounds give you the first half of 7th's Rending (n+ always wounds, regardless of T, where n defaults to 6), while DEVASTATING WOUNDS gives you a more powerful version of the second half, given that a Mortal Wound in 8/9/10th is more powerful than an AP2 wound.
By decoupling the parts, you get more flexibility on how they're triggered. Don't do anything special, and you've just got the top end of the 8/9th wounding chart (6 always wounds). Fold in an ANTI-X and/or DEVASTATING WOUNDS, and you see other ways to make a weapon more effective without needing to bump S or AP. And that's before anything else more theoretical comes into play.
But, at this point, we're in a wait/see/speculate kinda spot, until more information comes out. From what we've seen, though, I don't think Critical Wounds will do anything more on their own - but other actual USRs we don't know about might build off them.
Breton wrote: Anti-X creates Critical Wounds. So its already involving Critical Wounds - the thing I was wondering about that seems to have gotten your shorts in a twist. Now lets assume you're right and it doesn't get combo'd with Devastating Wounds too often - and it probably won't - that still implies Critical Wounds are for more than combo'ing wiht Devastating Wounds. Why are poison Wounds Critical if Critical Wounds don't do anything without Devastating Wounds? Gee if only some of us had been wondering about that sort of thing, instead of repeatedly regurgitating HOW instead of WHAT.
Not sure why you think there's anything wrong with my shorts, but please get your mind out of my clothing. You posited some scenarios, I proposed some thoughts as to how they may shake out.
I don't expect Critical Wounds to be anything more than a shorthand term for "this attack always wounds on X", where X defaults to 6+ but can be modified. I don't seem them affecting saves, or anything like that. I think they're just going to be a shorthand term that other rules can interact with.
What they do do is allow the replacement of all bits of rules that say "On a 6 to wound" - and allow for a bit more flexibility in those rules if a character say, can apply something to widen the range on which a Critical Wound occurs for that unit. Take a look through any 9th ed material you've got - any time a rule relies on "On a X to wound", you'll probably see that changed to "On a Critical Wound" in 10th, assuming the rule in question carries across.
We've seen something similar with the use of LETHAL HITS on the previewed Necron Gauss weapons, giving those weapons back an ability that had gone missing in the last couple of editions.
Except there's no (readily apparent) reason to make Anti-X wounds Critical Wounds when they could just be made Wounds. We pretty much have to assume there's more to it than Devastating Wounds Combos. Most editions introduce or reintroduce a mechanic that becomes the "test bed" of the edition - I think it's Critical Wounds. Because they're not hyping it, I'm guessing its either more appropriate for the codex releases or I'm wrong. But then I still have to wonder why they bothered to make Critical Wound in the first place. Anti-X/Poison and "6's always succeed" didn't need it, nor did Critically Devastating Wounds/Rending - we already had that USR too.
But they did need it so anti-infantry can be granular in comparison to flat critical wounds, also to use your example, you'd only be here repeating the same thing that a "poison wound" is a different thing than a wound or mortal wound using your demonstrated logic.
There are many things GW could do with Critical Wounds in addition to Devastating Wounds (do Mortal Wounds instead of normal Wounds). We are long used to Wounds that do additional damage on a 6, so a Damaging Wound that does extra Damage on a Critical Wound. They could go crazy and extend the Sustained Hits logic to a Sustained Wound rule where a Critical Wound does additional Wounds that must be saved. Or a Piercing Wound that does additional AP on a Critical Hit (although rather repetitive of Devastating Wounds in effect).
But that is purely speculation based on what we have seen in 10th Previews and past rules. I just feel we will almost certainly see Haywire as Anti-Vehicle X+, Devastating Wounds.
I’m genuinely looking forward to getting a feel for 40K now.
I appreciate other opinions are available, but it’s seeming less complex for the sake of complexity, without moving away from 40k’s long time mechanics.
Dysartes wrote: A DEMORALISING WOUND, perhaps, that forces a Battleshock test even if the unit hasn't lost enough models for them to need to take one normally?
Didn't the new Flamer dudes for Marines get a bespoke rule to do that?
Dysartes wrote: A DEMORALISING WOUND, perhaps, that forces a Battleshock test even if the unit hasn't lost enough models for them to need to take one normally?
Didn't the new Flamer dudes for Marines get a bespoke rule to do that?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've often found that those to say that are the ones who don't want or cannot argue back. Nothing I've said is unreasonable but you've just chosen to avoid answering any of it, and instead gone for hyperbolic ad hominem ("... people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad... ") rather than actually addressing the points raised. Worse, you claim that others are removing nuance yet think that throwing a block of cold, hard math at the argument will solve it, declaring that the maths is the thing that actually matters - as if it were the only thing that mattered - and that it makes you right. It doesn't. And it never will.
But if you want to run away from the argument, then that's your prerogative. We are not being forced to interact with one another, and do not have to if we do no choose to. Totally up to you. I wish you well. I hope you have fun with 10th. I on the other hand expect a little more from a company who's trying this for the 10th time and hasn't earned my trust that they'll get it right. The past informs the future, and GW's past is full of stumbling and falling. Why do you presume their future will be any brighter?
It's great that you're so righteous that you think that's true.
I throw cold hard math at the problem. If someone says "I don't see the reduction in lethality" is it or is it not a valid method to discuss this concern by doing the math and making comparisons? If instead someone says "why are ranged weapons not getting treated the same as melee weapons" and I show an example as to why that might be, but that's not valid either, I guess.
Math doesn't solve your feelings, but if you're not willing to inspect what you feelings are instead of just asserting them, because you don't like change then I'm not sure what to do. I completely understand the emotional appeal of 'my guy is armed with a heavy chainaxe' as if to say that this is a scary weapon with implications. Far more daunting that a 'heavy combat weapon', but I inspected my feelings and I found that it wasn't that important to me. It didn't change how I enjoy the game so I offered information to help inspect that feeling.
people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad. Liking something 30 years ago isn't bad. Bitching that it isn't the thing from 30 years is bad.
Let me explain it more simply:
My kid likes pepperoni pizza. It is also my favorite. One day mom decides to buy pepperoni, green pepper, and onion. Now, I'm a little skeptical as I haven't had this before. So she describes to me why she likes it. Ok, I think I'll give it a try. Once I do I find that even though it's not like my favorite it still has elements of it. And what has been added gives a new dimension that is quite enjoyable.
Now my kid - he refuses. He says, "You just like everything mom does!". And I try to explain that I don't. I just an open minded and willing to analyze and try new things. Then he pulls out a chart that shows how the weight of the pizza has increased. And I say, well that's a little weird, son. The weight of the pizza doesn't have a lot to do with how enjoyable it could be. He says I'm just defending mom without appreciating their view point and them him and his buddies jump me, because I didn't start my sentence with "Yea everything mom does is awful and pepperoni is my favorite, too".
You'll (finally) accept that GW is making some good changes, but you still wallow around in the 'Oh they gon feth up! I just know it! GWnever changes!' And that's a very easy position to take, isn't it? All you have to do is wait a little. And it WILL happen, but what matters is the degree and how it gets handled, but you don't care about that. You just want that blood.
And most of all, I have a real problem with people who look at all these changes and just accept them without question or criticism, acting as if everything that's changing is instantly better, forgetting years and years of GW's history with messing rules up and, perhaps blindly, assuming that they could never possibly make those mistakes again.
You completely ignore any of my reservations about combis, psychic powers, and how codexes will roll out. Instead you and others frequently insist that everything I say is just supportive of GW and completely ignore what I say unless I put a giant asterisk on each post so I don't interrupt your complaint parade.
You completely ignore any of my reservations about combis, psychic powers, and how codexes will roll out. Instead you and others frequently insist that everything I say is just supportive of GW and completely ignore what I say unless I put a giant asterisk on each post so I don't interrupt your complaint parade.
Necrons don't have any of those things, so why would changes to them make him care? At some point it becomes an argument with a person, who doesn't care about your stuff, cares about his and no amount of argumentation or math will convince them. Only thing worse is talking about a faction being bad, like Cruel Boys, with a person who thinks that Cruel boys shouldn't even be a faction.
Except there's no (readily apparent) reason to make Anti-X wounds Critical Wounds when they could just be made Wounds.
You can't, because Normal Wounds are scored by comparing strength vs. toughness. This makes them different than Critical Wounds, which are scored regardless of toughness and without concern for it. I am uncertain why this is so hard to get.
If I have Anit-X, and I exceed the X score needed, the wound is called a critical wound, because even if your toughness is 998,473,912, the wound still hurts you BECAUSE IT'S CRITICAL. A normal wound does not do this.
Normal wound= Requires a strength roll vs. toughness in order to inflict damage
Critical wound= Does not require a strength roll vs. toughness- skip the roll and process directly to saving throw
But then I still have to wonder why they bothered to make Critical Wound in the first place. Anti-X/Poison and "6's always succeed" didn't need it,
Because now, the Devastating Wounds ability doesn't have to say "If you rolled above the poison target when firing a poisoned weapon, or you rolled a 6 on a weapon that wasn't poisoned, the wound becomes a mortal wound."
Instead, you can say "When this unit scores a critical wound, they inflict a Mortal wound rather than regular damage." Easier, right? That's why they did it.
As others have pointed it, there are quite likely to be other effects that trigger off Critical Wounds; if this is true, then creating the Critical Wound descriptor was an even better design decision, because it will save space in the rules on a bunch of abilities, rather than just on the Devasting Wounds ability. But even if it turns out NOT to be true, the term Critical Wounds still has value, because it provides a way to describe a wound which bypassed toughness without having to list all of the scenarios that cause that type of wound.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've often found that those to say that are the ones who don't want or cannot argue back. Nothing I've said is unreasonable but you've just chosen to avoid answering any of it, and instead gone for hyperbolic ad hominem ("... people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad... ") rather than actually addressing the points raised. Worse, you claim that others are removing nuance yet think that throwing a block of cold, hard math at the argument will solve it, declaring that the maths is the thing that actually matters - as if it were the only thing that mattered - and that it makes you right. It doesn't. And it never will.
But if you want to run away from the argument, then that's your prerogative. We are not being forced to interact with one another, and do not have to if we do no choose to. Totally up to you. I wish you well. I hope you have fun with 10th. I on the other hand expect a little more from a company who's trying this for the 10th time and hasn't earned my trust that they'll get it right. The past informs the future, and GW's past is full of stumbling and falling. Why do you presume their future will be any brighter?
It's great that you're so righteous that you think that's true.
I throw cold hard math at the problem. If someone says "I don't see the reduction in lethality" is it or is it not a valid method to discuss this concern by doing the math and making comparisons? If instead someone says "why are ranged weapons not getting treated the same as melee weapons" and I show an example as to why that might be, but that's not valid either, I guess.
Math doesn't solve your feelings, but if you're not willing to inspect what you feelings are instead of just asserting them, because you don't like change then I'm not sure what to do. I completely understand the emotional appeal of 'my guy is armed with a heavy chainaxe' as if to imply that this is a scary weapon with implications. Far more daunting that a 'heavy combat weapon', but I inspected my feelings and I found that it wasn't that important to me. It didn't change how I enjoy the game.
people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad. Liking something 30 years ago isn't bad. Bitching that it isn't the thing from 30 years is bad.
Let me explain it more simply:
My kid likes pepperoni pizza. It is also my favorite. One day mom decides to buy pepperoni, green pepper, and onion. Now, I'm a little skeptical as I haven't had this before. So she describes to me why she likes it. Ok, I think I'll give it a try. Once I do I find that even though it's not like my favorite it still has elements of it. And what has been added gives a new dimension that is quite enjoyable.
Now my kid - he refuses. He says, "You just like everything mom does!". And I try to explain that I don't. I just an open minded and willing to analyze and try new things. Then he pulls out a chart that shows how the weight of the pizza has increased. And I say, well that's a little weird, son. The weight of the pizza doesn't have a lot to do with how enjoyable it could be. He says I'm just defending mom without appreciating their view point and them him and his buddies jump me, because I didn't start my sentence with "Yea everything mom does is awful and pepperoni is my favorite, too".
You'll (finally) accept that GW is making some good changes, but you still wallow around in the 'Oh they gon feth up! I just know it! GWnever changes!' And that's a very easy position to take, isn't it? All you have to do is wait a little. And it WILL happen, but what matters is the degree and how it gets handled, but you don't care about that. You just want that blood.
And most of all, I have a real problem with people who look at all these changes and just accept them without question or criticism, acting as if everything that's changing is instantly better, forgetting years and years of GW's history with messing rules up and, perhaps blindly, assuming that they could never possibly make those mistakes again.
You completely ignore any of my reservations about combis, psychic powers, and how codexes will roll out. Instead you and others frequently insist that everything I say is just supportive of GW and completely ignore what I say unless I put a giant asterisk on each post so I don't interrupt your complaint parade.
All coming from the guy defending the new Combi-Weapons LOL
GW hires for attitude, is that what you're trying to express?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've often found that those to say that are the ones who don't want or cannot argue back. Nothing I've said is unreasonable but you've just chosen to avoid answering any of it, and instead gone for hyperbolic ad hominem ("... people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad... ") rather than actually addressing the points raised. Worse, you claim that others are removing nuance yet think that throwing a block of cold, hard math at the argument will solve it, declaring that the maths is the thing that actually matters - as if it were the only thing that mattered - and that it makes you right. It doesn't. And it never will.
But if you want to run away from the argument, then that's your prerogative. We are not being forced to interact with one another, and do not have to if we do no choose to. Totally up to you. I wish you well. I hope you have fun with 10th. I on the other hand expect a little more from a company who's trying this for the 10th time and hasn't earned my trust that they'll get it right. The past informs the future, and GW's past is full of stumbling and falling. Why do you presume their future will be any brighter?
It's great that you're so righteous that you think that's true.
I throw cold hard math at the problem. If someone says "I don't see the reduction in lethality" is it or is it not a valid method to discuss this concern by doing the math and making comparisons? If instead someone says "why are ranged weapons not getting treated the same as melee weapons" and I show an example as to why that might be, but that's not valid either, I guess.
Math doesn't solve your feelings, but if you're not willing to inspect what you feelings are instead of just asserting them, because you don't like change then I'm not sure what to do. I completely understand the emotional appeal of 'my guy is armed with a heavy chainaxe' as if to imply that this is a scary weapon with implications. Far more daunting that a 'heavy combat weapon', but I inspected my feelings and I found that it wasn't that important to me. It didn't change how I enjoy the game.
people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad. Liking something 30 years ago isn't bad. Bitching that it isn't the thing from 30 years is bad.
Let me explain it more simply:
My kid likes pepperoni pizza. It is also my favorite. One day mom decides to buy pepperoni, green pepper, and onion. Now, I'm a little skeptical as I haven't had this before. So she describes to me why she likes it. Ok, I think I'll give it a try. Once I do I find that even though it's not like my favorite it still has elements of it. And what has been added gives a new dimension that is quite enjoyable.
Now my kid - he refuses. He says, "You just like everything mom does!". And I try to explain that I don't. I just an open minded and willing to analyze and try new things. Then he pulls out a chart that shows how the weight of the pizza has increased. And I say, well that's a little weird, son. The weight of the pizza doesn't have a lot to do with how enjoyable it could be. He says I'm just defending mom without appreciating their view point and them him and his buddies jump me, because I didn't start my sentence with "Yea everything mom does is awful and pepperoni is my favorite, too".
You'll (finally) accept that GW is making some good changes, but you still wallow around in the 'Oh they gon feth up! I just know it! GWnever changes!' And that's a very easy position to take, isn't it? All you have to do is wait a little. And it WILL happen, but what matters is the degree and how it gets handled, but you don't care about that. You just want that blood.
And most of all, I have a real problem with people who look at all these changes and just accept them without question or criticism, acting as if everything that's changing is instantly better, forgetting years and years of GW's history with messing rules up and, perhaps blindly, assuming that they could never possibly make those mistakes again.
You completely ignore any of my reservations about combis, psychic powers, and how codexes will roll out. Instead you and others frequently insist that everything I say is just supportive of GW and completely ignore what I say unless I put a giant asterisk on each post so I don't interrupt your complaint parade.
All coming from the guy defending the new Combi-Weapons LOL
GW hires for attitude, is that what you're trying to express?
Daedalus81 defended the Combi-Weapon? The only defense if the Combi-Weapon on the Librarian I've noted was mine based on the math comparing his Combi-Weapon the his Storm Bolter. They are roughly equivalent weapons, each having a preferred target they are better against. That would make them 0 point options for the unit. Which is a reason for the rule. Not a great one, but certainly an understandable one.
All coming from the guy defending the new Combi-Weapons LOL
GW hires for attitude, is that what you're trying to express?
Remember where I said this?
He says I'm just defending mom without appreciating their view point and them him and his buddies jump me, because I didn't start my sentence with "Yea everything mom does is awful and pepperoni is my favorite, too".
That's you. You're the toadie that comes in all 'look at me guys! I'm helping!' while completely ignoring my reservations about combis and questions that it creates around Sternguard - especially with a new kit coming. All you care about is painting with that broad brush so you can feel cool.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Daed specifically mentioned having "reservations" about the changes to combi-weapons in the quoted post.
Reservations = not going to criticize
Reservations means I am going to take time to think about it. I don't like what it does to some units, but I also can't change it. All I can do is inspect it within the game when it's out and if I don't find a good reason for removing them then that's a request I can send to GW.
Or I could just say, "OMG GW is sooo dumb. Why do they do dumb things? Does anyone else hate GW?", but I don't find that very productive or enlightening.
Karol wrote: Necrons don't have any of those things, so why would changes to them make him care? At some point it becomes an argument with a person, who doesn't care about your stuff, cares about his and no amount of argumentation or math will convince them. Only thing worse is talking about a faction being bad, like Cruel Boys, with a person who thinks that Cruel boys shouldn't even be a faction.
There's multiple layers here and the post I made isn't addressing one particular person directly, but many who constantly badger me.
As for Necrons - deciding that Immortals are no longer worthwhile while not having seen Immortals in this edition or contextualizing WHY Immortals felt different in older editions doesn't make for great discussion material in a thread about *checks notes* 10th edition gameplay and rules discussion.
I realize that I'm being a huge dick right now and I apologize to the forum in general for going on a tirade. I'm just sick of some of these dynamics. If you don't agree with my premise - say so. Tell me why it's not compelling. Don't just cop out and say 'hur hur you defend GW'.
- Inflict MW instad of damage on 6 to wound.
- Inlict MW in addition to the damage on a 6 to wound.
- +X AP on a six to wound
- Bonus damage on a six to wound
- More wounds to save on a 6 to wound
- Slay the enemy model on a 6 to wound
- Ignore Invuln on a 6 to wound
- Spread damage on a 6 to wound
...
It makes damn good sense to create a handy defintion for 6 to wound!
"facts/logic/math don't care about your feelings" is not a rebuttal to "I feel things aren't where I want them to be".
If anything, it is an affirmation of that feeling, while simultaneously rejecting it. What I saw was:
"Immortals should feel stronger than marines"
"Well, point for point they are"
"Okay, but individually they aren't"
"Well, point for point they are. Here is some math."
"But I want them to be individually stronger than marines!"
"Everything is fine and balanced, didn't you read my math?"
Dysartes wrote: A DEMORALISING WOUND, perhaps, that forces a Battleshock test even if the unit hasn't lost enough models for them to need to take one normally?
Didn't the new Flamer dudes for Marines get a bespoke rule to do that?
The Screamer Killer has one.
Neither do, technically. Instead, they both force a battleshock test on a unit hit by their atacks.
With some additional language that you can only force a test on a single unit and it only affects the pyreblaster attacks (or bio plasma. Or technically shooting, but that's the unit's only shooting attack). So you can't multitarget and spray everything in range and battle shock everything.
Yeah. I think the chance of that being an option is going to be close to zero. It could happens, but GW does seem to be learning things no matter how slowly.
Karol wrote: Necrons don't have any of those things, so why would changes to them make him care? At some point it becomes an argument with a person, who doesn't care about your stuff, cares about his and no amount of argumentation or math will convince them. Only thing worse is talking about a faction being bad, like Cruel Boys, with a person who thinks that Cruel boys shouldn't even be a faction.
There's multiple layers here and the post I made isn't addressing one particular person directly, but many who constantly badger me.
As for Necrons - deciding that Immortals are no longer worthwhile while not having seen Immortals in this edition or contextualizing WHY Immortals felt different in older editions doesn't make for great discussion material in a thread about *checks notes* 10th edition gameplay and rules discussion.
I realize that I'm being a huge dick right now and I apologize to the forum in general for going on a tirade. I'm just sick of some of these dynamics. If you don't agree with my premise - say so. Tell me why it's not compelling. Don't just cop out and say 'hur hur you defend GW'.
Honestly taking a step back and providing contextual opinions and viewpoints based in reality of mathematics in a largely probability based game are a key needed angle. Your points are always well worded and presented, but please don't stop just because of the gnashing of some others.
Another trope often mocked here is "wait and see", but we really do need to wait and see to as degree, there's a lot of unknowns and the full picture of GW's implementation remains to be seen.
We don't always agree, but you're not the jerk here.
I want to second this. You're not at fault here daedalus. You're just trying to have a discussion with people who reject the very idea of ever being wrong about anything.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What does Critical Wound even do? Does it ignore armour?
As far as we know, a Critical Wound is a Wound Roll results that causes a Wound to the target regardless of the Strength of the attack. That's it. You still roll to Save as normal.
A unmodified 6 is always a Critical Wound.
Some rules may change what dice results cause a Critical Wound.
Some rules may cause additional effects if an attack generates a Critical Wound.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What does Critical Wound even do? Does it ignore armour?
It wounds, regardless of S vs T. By default a critical wound is 6, so it isn't impactful by itself, but other mechanics hang off it. Anti-X shifts the target number, and things like devastating wounds create turns a wound roll into a mortal wound.
We are, quite naturally, still learning the list of effects
Knock it off now please. It will obviously be a surprise to some but different people like different things and they are allowed to. Stick to discussing 10th edition gameplay and rules and not posting barbs about other posters.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What does Critical Wound even do? Does it ignore armour?
As far as we know, a Critical Wound is a Wound Roll results that causes a Wound to the target regardless of the Strength of the attack. That's it. You still roll to Save as normal.
A unmodified 6 is always a Critical Wound.
Some rules may change what dice results cause a Critical Wound.
Some rules may cause additional effects if an attack generates a Critical Wound.
So looks like a way to devalue races that rely on toughness instead of armor. So orks basically.
Where is Sempermortis.... Semper can you believe this crap
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What does Critical Wound even do? Does it ignore armour?
As far as we know, a Critical Wound is a Wound Roll results that causes a Wound to the target regardless of the Strength of the attack. That's it. You still roll to Save as normal.
A unmodified 6 is always a Critical Wound.
Some rules may change what dice results cause a Critical Wound.
Some rules may cause additional effects if an attack generates a Critical Wound.
So looks like a way to devalue races that rely on toughness instead of armor. So orks basically.
Where is Sempermortis.... Semper can you believe this crap
Uh. I think I'm missing context.
Boo, you've been able to wound things on a 6 for two editions now. All Alextroy is saying (unless I'm missing something) is that a "Critical Wound" is the new short-hand for saying, "on an unmodified to-wound roll of 6..."
So if they want to have a weapon do something special on a to-wound roll of 6 (like current shuriken weapons, rail weapons, etc.), they can just say, "Critical Wounds do X." Or if they want to add a special rule that makes those shuriken/rail weapon effects go off on a value other than 6, they could say something like, "Weapons with this rule generate Critical Wounds on a to-wound roll of 5+." Or if they want to clarify whether bonus wounds generated by some other rule count as being 6s or not, they can throw the words "Critical Wounds" in there somewhere.
It's just giving them a simple, two-word term that other rules can reference.
Dudeface wrote: Honestly taking a step back and providing contextual opinions and viewpoints based in reality of mathematics in a largely probability based game are a key needed angle. Your points are always well worded and presented, but please don't stop just because of the gnashing of some others.
Another trope often mocked here is "wait and see", but we really do need to wait and see to as degree, there's a lot of unknowns and the full picture of GW's implementation remains to be seen.
I appreciate the kind words from you and others.
I know that likely things I say may not come off the right way so I'll try harder to be sensitive and rephrase what I say so it doesn't offend. I'm not perfect and I'm ok being wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: "facts/logic/math don't care about your feelings" is not a rebuttal to "I feel things aren't where I want them to be".
If anything, it is an affirmation of that feeling, while simultaneously rejecting it. What I saw was:
"Immortals should feel stronger than marines"
"Well, point for point they are"
"Okay, but individually they aren't"
"Well, point for point they are. Here is some math."
"But I want them to be individually stronger than marines!"
"Everything is fine and balanced, didn't you read my math?"
That isn't how I would characterize it and I didn't do any math on immortals, but I'll reflect on this so that I can do better in the future.
Boo, you've been able to wound things on a 6 for two editions now. All Alextroy is saying (unless I'm missing something) is that a "Critical Wound" is the new short-hand for saying, "on an unmodified to-wound roll of 6..."
So if they want to have a weapon do something special on a to-wound roll of 6 (like current shuriken weapons, rail weapons, etc.), they can just say, "Critical Wounds do X." Or if they want to add a special rule that makes those shuriken/rail weapon effects go off on a value other than 6, they could say something like, "Weapons with this rule generate Critical Wounds on a to-wound roll of 5+." Or if they want to clarify whether bonus wounds generated by some other rule count as being 6s or not, they can throw the words "Critical Wounds" in there somewhere.
It's just giving them a simple, two-word term that other rules can reference.
I think this could be worded slightly differently.
A critical wound is a wound that always succeeds. A 6 to wound is always considered a critical wound.
That way when you have Anti-Vehicle it says a 3+ causes a critical wound, which tells us it will automatically wound any vehicle on a 3+
But they did need it so anti-infantry can be granular in comparison to flat critical wounds, also to use your example, you'd only be here repeating the same thing that a "poison wound" is a different thing than a wound or mortal wound using your demonstrated logic.
Other than the fact that I've already pointed out that Poison is likely Anti-X and in the past poison created regular not Critical wounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: I don't doubt there will be abilities other than DEVASTATING WOUNDS - either on weapons, units, or even detachment/factions - that key off Critical Wounds. We just haven't seen them yet, though we may get exposed to more of them as the Faction preview cycle rolls on.
And we didn't have a Rending USR coming into 10th -
We didn't have a poison USR either, but we can all draw the parallels between Poison and Anti-X like most of us can draw between Rending and Devastating Wounds.
I appreciate other opinions are available, but it’s seeming less complex for the sake of complexity, without moving away from 40k’s long time mechanics.
I'm mixed. I'm worried we lost too much flavor complexity. Everyone is an Ultramarine, or a Black Legionnaire is a step back. Perhaps, and hopefully the Codex will bring two-page's for each subfaction and the current faction rule is really just a bandaid to get us through.
Except there's no (readily apparent) reason to make Anti-X wounds Critical Wounds when they could just be made Wounds.
You can't, because Normal Wounds are scored by comparing strength vs. toughness. This makes them different than Critical Wounds, which are scored regardless of toughness and without concern for it. I am uncertain why this is so hard to get.
Except with Poison, Transhuman, and so on. Poison in 9th did not create critical wounds - because critical wounds didn't even exist.
If I have Anit-X, and I exceed the X score needed, the wound is called a critical wound, because even if your toughness is 998,473,912, the wound still hurts you BECAUSE IT'S CRITICAL. A normal wound does not do this.
Normal wound= Requires a strength roll vs. toughness in order to inflict damage
Critical wound= Does not require a strength roll vs. toughness- skip the roll and process directly to saving throw
Again if I have a poison dart gun I (regular) wound on a X+ even if your Toughness is 998,473,912.
But then I still have to wonder why they bothered to make Critical Wound in the first place. Anti-X/Poison and "6's always succeed" didn't need it,
Because now, the Devastating Wounds ability doesn't have to say "If you rolled above the poison target when firing a poisoned weapon, or you rolled a 6 on a weapon that wasn't poisoned, the wound becomes a mortal wound."
Instead, you can say "When this unit scores a critical wound, they inflict a Mortal wound rather than regular damage." Easier, right? That's why they did it.
Except we're already pretty much ruling out Poison - Anti-Infantry - Critical Wound - Devastating Wounds - Mortal paths being common.
As others have pointed it, there are quite likely to be other effects that trigger off Critical Wounds; if this is true, then creating the Critical Wound descriptor was an even better design decision, because it will save space in the rules on a bunch of abilities, rather than just on the Devasting Wounds ability. But even if it turns out NOT to be true, the term Critical Wounds still has value, because it provides a way to describe a wound which bypassed toughness without having to list all of the scenarios that cause that type of wound.
Dysartes wrote: A DEMORALISING WOUND, perhaps, that forces a Battleshock test even if the unit hasn't lost enough models for them to need to take one normally?
Didn't the new Flamer dudes for Marines get a bespoke rule to do that?
The Screamer Killer has one.
Neither do, technically. Instead, they both force a battleshock test on a unit hit by their atacks.
With some additional language that you can only force a test on a single unit and it only affects the pyreblaster attacks (or bio plasma. Or technically shooting, but that's the unit's only shooting attack). So you can't multitarget and spray everything in range and battle shock everything.
I didn't look up the Screamer Killer, but the Flamer Marines do - the orginal premise was a weapon that forces a Battleshock before casualties forces one - and the Flamer Marines do - it's required in the shooting phase, it requires a hit not a casaulty or even a wound, only from the flamer that auto-hits. They took the long way around to get there probably for the limit 1 criteria.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What does Critical Wound even do? Does it ignore armour?
The accurate answer is: We don't know yet.
All we currently know is: its another bucket of special wounds - this bucket can be turned into Mortals suggesting but not confirming it's the middle bucket between regular wounds and mortals.
Most of us believe there's more to them than just a trigger for Devastating Wounds. How much more we suspect is different from person to person, and probably different from our guesses and GW's reality.
I'm pretty sure we've already learned what there is to learn about Critical Wounds in the Terminator Article.
Anti abilities – covering many different keywords like Infantry, Monster, and Vehicle – produce a Critical Wound** on any wound roll that matches or beats the specified score, regardless of the target’s Toughness. This makes for specialised weapons that excel in their field, but don’t stay equally deadly against other target types.
** A guaranteed success, normally achieved by rolling an unmodified six.
In addition to that, we have seen that other abilities key off of Criticals (both Hits and Wounds). I'm not sure why everyone wants to make it more complicated that what they have already told us rather clearly.
Ok... I'll do my damndest to make this as succinct and related to 10th Edition discussions as possible as possible. Here goes...
Daedalus81 wrote: I throw cold hard math at the problem. If someone says "I don't see the reduction in lethality" is it or is it not a valid method to discuss this concern by doing the math and making comparisons? If instead someone says "why are ranged weapons not getting treated the same as melee weapons" and I show an example as to why that might be, but that's not valid either, I guess.
My point was that posting reams of mathematics is the method through which you argue. So, when I say that a Heavy Chainaxe and a Power Fist shouldn't be the same thing, you come back with a block of maths that shows the results both weapons get is largely the same, so that's the justification for making them into a generic weapon. Let me illustrate why this type of thinking drives me up the wall (and I'll put in spoiler tags to shorten things):
Spoiler:
I think way back to Stargate SG-1, the start of Season Six (21 years ago now... wow...). A guest character who would later go on to become one of the spin-off's main characters is brought back in to help with a very technical scientific problem. The man is a bonafide genius, through and through, and clashes with the scientist who is the main character quite often (and more often than not he's in the right, a theme that would continue for many years). At one point during the narrative, there have a moment of introspection, and stop going at one another. He talks of how what he really wanted to do was be a concert pianist, not an astrophysicist. And because he is a genius, he was very good at it. Learnt it quickly, knew how to do everything. But his teacher told him to stop, because he had no feel for the art of playing piano. Sure, he could learn every note put before him, and play it to clinical precision, but there was no feeling behind it.
When I say that a heavy chain axe and a power fist should be different weapons, and you come back with a block of maths "proving" that they shouldn't, that's the lack of art. There is no attempt made to reason why they should be separate items, you just look at the math, see they're not very different now, therefore they can't possibly be different in the future, and that's that. When you say that it's just a name, that's the lack of art. And when I say you could make them different using the inherent systems they've created for this new edition (the various universal/weapon special rules) so that differences between weapons can be represented in ways beyond just their Strength/AP/Damage... you tell me that I'm just annoyed because it's not what I liked 30 years ago.
Can you see why this might annoy me (other than, y'know, reminding me how old I am )?
It's not that the math is wrong - numbers are numbers and it's hard to be biased with raw maths - but it's that it doesn't paint the entire picture. It's not the be-all and end-all of a discussion. It cannot be the only thing one relies on, because if everything is clinical and sterile just raw figures, then it really doesn't matter what topping is on your pizza.
Daedalus81 wrote: You'll (finally) accept that GW is making some good changes, but you still wallow around in the 'Oh they gon feth up! I just know it! GWnever changes!' And that's a very easy position to take, isn't it? All you have to do is wait a little. And it WILL happen, but what matters is the degree and how it gets handled...
You're right in that if were graphing this, the chances of GW screwing up would eventually = 1. It is inevitable, but my ire stems more from the fact that they don't learn from their mistakes. I'm not sitting here rubbing my hands greedily waiting for that screw up so I can pounce on them. I want them to learn from past mistakes and try to fix things, something that is very difficult to do when they constantly try to reinvent the wheel each time they do a new edition and especially when they make decisions that seem so hasty and rushed ("Everyone hates bloat... so, let's remove all psychic powers/relics/warlord traits as choices and just have a few of each!"). This is why I've been banging on recently about their rules not being iterative. It's good that they're willing to try new things, but if everyone here found the faults in, for example, the new terrain rules within 1/2 an hour of them being posted, how will does it bode for everything else?
Honestly, it reminds me of a brief exchange from the second Jurassic Park film:
Hammond:Don't worry, I'm not making the same mistakes again. Malcolm:No, you're making all new ones.
What I want is to be able to field my armies without feeling like each time a revision comes around something else has been chipped away. I don't wait for something new to appear so I can pick it apart - I do that naturally, it's in my nature, hell I've done it professionally, editing and proof-reading everything from press releases to government tenders to entire 40kRPG rulebooks. I'm not looking for the blood, I'm just efficient at finding it as you are at running numbers.
Daedalus81 wrote: You completely ignore any of my reservations about combis, psychic powers, and how codexes will roll out. Instead you and others frequently insist that everything I say is just supportive of GW and completely ignore what I say unless I put a giant asterisk on each post so I don't interrupt your complaint parade.
And you assume that everything I do is a "complaint parade", no doubt born of a yearning for the way things were 30 years ago.
Two points here:
Spoiler:
1. I certainly don't yearn for the way things were 30 years ago. 30 years ago was 2nd Ed, and whatever fond memories I have of that time, it was of the time spent playing, not the rules. 2nd was a mess, and only truly worked on a scale like Necromunda. If I want something back from the days of yore, it's the flavour and choice we had. The 3.5 Codex gets brought up quite a bit, but it is the gold-standard for flexibility, flavour and choice. And it wasn't balanced at all. Then Daemons got taken away. And Daemon Weapons were heavily reduced. Marks of Chaos went away for whole editions. The Legions were removed. What was once so grand and so capable of representing just about everything from the most traditionalist Black Legion force to an (almost) newly minted Renegade Chapter (as long as you didn't wonder where all their Land Speeders/Whirlwinds/Razorbacks/Cyclone Launchers went!) was reduced to a book that basically copypasta'd entire sections from the Marine Codex, so much so that many people used Loyalist Codices to better represent Chaos Legions. Now look to what's happening with Chaos now. Is it any wonder I fear another contraction, even on simple things like weapon types that have been around since before even I started playing?
2. NinthMusketeer. "Huh?", you're not doubt saying. "What he got to do with this?". Let me explain. Ninth and I used to be at each other's throats quite a bit. He'd accuse me of complaining about everything GW did (literally), and I'd tell him to go jump. This went on for quite some time, including ignore lists and edited posts with angry red text and things like that, but we got over it, and now the two of us can have perfectly normal conversations and we explain things clearly to one another. No assumptions are made. Overread is actually in a similar way, although it was never as savage (certainly no warnings or ignore lists). I give credit where credit's due, and frankly GW has done nothing to earn that credit in recent years. I like what they did with the Tyranid Codex, and even parts of the Chaos Codex. I think that the current Eldar Codex has the structure that all 9th Ed books should've had. I think the Guard and WE books are abominations. And it's not just because of their power, or whatever the numbers say. Sometimes things just feel wrong.
I like what GW are doing with morale in 10th. I think moving To Hit rolls for weapons to the sheet rather than flat BS is a good idea that opens up the design space. I like what they're doing with transports. From what we've seen the army structure mechanics seems to simplify things in a way that is massively beneficial to the game, as they reduce what catbarf always refers to as the "cognitive load" 40k has. I am very happy that Universal Special Rules have come back into the game, and that they are making consolidations for things that didn't necessarily need to be a thing (making a more flexible Bolt Rifle than three different weapons for Intercessors, for example).
These are all good things - and I will celebrate each and every one (hell, the ideas I have for creating custom detachments for campaigns has been buzzing around in my head for days!), but just because there is good doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that there isn't also bad. The terrain rules are too simplistic (and counter-intuitive), from what we've seen I don't think their USRs go far enough, and consolidating things like power fists - something that has been around in this game for longer than I have been playing - seems like they've gone too far to remove that 'cognitive load'. 9th's problem was 40 Strats per army. 9th's problem was overlapping layered rules. 9th's problem was 45 different types of bolter (and 14 types of Scything Talon ). 9th's problem was 90-odd psychic powers divided amongst just the Marines factions. 9th's problem was a morale system that punished players for losing models by making them lose more models. 9th's problem wasn't that power fists had their own stats, even if the math says that them and heavy chainaxes weren't that different.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's multiple layers here and the post I made isn't addressing one particular person directly, but many who constantly badger me.
Do you know how often people jump down my throat for simply posting in a thread? How many people completely dismiss anything I say just to tell me to shut it because it's me? I'm not begging for sympathy, but your plight is not uncommon around here, however unfortunate that might be.
Ok... apparently not as succinct as I wanted it to be. Sorry about that.
alextroy wrote: I'm pretty sure we've already learned what there is to learn about Critical Wounds in the Terminator Article.
Anti abilities – covering many different keywords like Infantry, Monster, and Vehicle – produce a Critical Wound** on any wound roll that matches or beats the specified score, regardless of the target’s Toughness. This makes for specialised weapons that excel in their field, but don’t stay equally deadly against other target types.
** A guaranteed success, normally achieved by rolling an unmodified six.
In addition to that, we have seen that other abilities key off of Criticals (both Hits and Wounds). I'm not sure why everyone wants to make it more complicated that what they have already told us rather clearly.
This implies that there are Anti-Monster things.
Do we think that there will be weapons better suited to anit-tank work and then other weapons that are better at taking out monsters?
I understand the complaint about losing flavor when you combine weapons but losing some of that flavor is ok in the scale 40k has. In an RPG where you control a single character it makes sense to differentiate between two types of chainswords or two types of lasguns. In a game like Kill Team where you have 10 models it makes a lot of sense to differentiate between power fists and heavy chainaxes. At 40k's scale it's more important to differentiate between how squads behave.
Homogenizing here also opens up modeling opportunities. I don't have to find fist or chainaxe bits, i can grab a spear from some AOS model or give him giant mutated crab hands or whatever, as long as it realistically looks like a heavy melee weapon.
I don’t think you can say it’s universally acceptable.
You can say it’s fine for you, and argue that it’s better for the health of the game, but HMBC’s point about how it feels is not without merit.
Ultimately, this is a game and hobby we do for fun. If it’s not fun, for whatever reason, something should be adjusted for you.
JNAProductions wrote: I don’t think you can say it’s universally acceptable.
You can say it’s fine for you, and argue that it’s better for the health of the game, but HMBC’s point about how it feels is not without merit.
Ultimately, this is a game and hobby we do for fun. If it’s not fun, for whatever reason, something should be adjusted for you.
What? When did I say that it's universally acceptable? I even said that that I understand his complaint. That's kind of a weirdly high energy response to me.
alextroy wrote: I'm pretty sure we've already learned what there is to learn about Critical Wounds in the Terminator Article.
Anti abilities – covering many different keywords like Infantry, Monster, and Vehicle – produce a Critical Wound** on any wound roll that matches or beats the specified score, regardless of the target’s Toughness. This makes for specialised weapons that excel in their field, but don’t stay equally deadly against other target types.
** A guaranteed success, normally achieved by rolling an unmodified six.
In addition to that, we have seen that other abilities key off of Criticals (both Hits and Wounds). I'm not sure why everyone wants to make it more complicated that what they have already told us rather clearly.
This implies that there are Anti-Monster things.
Do we think that there will be weapons better suited to anit-tank work and then other weapons that are better at taking out monsters?
Sure. Drukhari Poison Weapons have long been better against Monsters than they are against Vehicles. Interestingly, if they don't have a Poison USR, they will need to give Poison Weapons multiple Anti rules to match up with the old Poison. They could even make them them if they want. Anti-Infanty 4+ and Anti-Monster 5+.
Homogenizing here also opens up modeling opportunities. I don't have to find fist or chainaxe bits, i can grab a spear from some AOS model or give him giant mutated crab hands or whatever, as long as it realistically looks like a heavy melee weapon.
You don't need to merge Power Fists and Chainaxes together to do that though.
The 3.5 Chaos codex managed to make heavy close combat weapons AKA Great Weapons (two-handed CCW, +2S) and Power Fists (CCW, Sx2, strike last, ignore armour saves) distinct (they were horribly balanced, but still...)
You could still have your converted Gribly McCrab Hands with a counts-as Heavy Close Combat Weapon, and still have the distinct option for a Power Fist.
I wish GW would lean more into using USRs and keywords when creating weapons.
For example, you could have something likea basic Close Combat Weapon (S:user, AP0, A+1), then a Power prefix (AP3), Chain prefix (S+1 against non-vehicles), and Great/Heavy prefix (S+2, no A+1), and combine them to represent everything from a rusty pipe (CCW) to a chainsword ( Chain CCW) to a relic blade (Heavy Power CCW), to an eviscerator (Heavy Chain CCW).
novembermike wrote: I understand the complaint about losing flavor when you combine weapons but losing some of that flavor is ok in the scale 40k has. In an RPG where you control a single character it makes sense to differentiate between two types of chainswords or two types of lasguns. In a game like Kill Team where you have 10 models it makes a lot of sense to differentiate between power fists and heavy chainaxes. At 40k's scale it's more important to differentiate between how squads behave.
Homogenizing here also opens up modeling opportunities. I don't have to find fist or chainaxe bits, i can grab a spear from some AOS model or give him giant mutated crab hands or whatever, as long as it realistically looks like a heavy melee weapon.
?!?
I am sorry but we are playing a wargame, taking away specialisation of a unit, to interact with specific maybee mechanically diffrent unit types and touting that as an improvement is questionable. And whilest i can get behind simplification of melee weapons anti-tank weaponry once upon a time had a very specific niche. (granted 40k has mechanically so heavily degraded that we don't even have a reason to treat a tank diffrent from a dread from a monster or an infantry model realistically but he.)
Not Online!!! wrote: ?!?
I am sorry but we are playing a wargame, taking away specialisation of a unit, to interact with specific maybee mechanically diffrent unit types and touting that as an improvement is questionable. And whilest i can get behind simplification of melee weapons anti-tank weaponry once upon a time had a very specific niche. (granted 40k has mechanically so heavily degraded that we don't even have a reason to treat a tank diffrent from a dread from a monster or an infantry model realistically but he.)
Well, 5th edition managed to get by with just 9 types of combat weapons and I'd argue it still pulled off that wargame thing quite well
I love my plague marines and their smattering of close combat weapons a lot, but I really could do with just plague weapon, heavy plague weapon and flail. The difference between axes and swords and the other swords matters just as little as does the difference between greater plague cleaver and mace of contagion.
Not Online!!! wrote: ?!?
I am sorry but we are playing a wargame, taking away specialisation of a unit, to interact with specific maybee mechanically diffrent unit types and touting that as an improvement is questionable. And whilest i can get behind simplification of melee weapons anti-tank weaponry once upon a time had a very specific niche. (granted 40k has mechanically so heavily degraded that we don't even have a reason to treat a tank diffrent from a dread from a monster or an infantry model realistically but he.)
Well, 5th edition managed to get by with just 9 types of combat weapons and I'd argue it still pulled off that wargame thing quite well
I love my plague marines and their smattering of close combat weapons a lot, but I really could do with just plague weapon, heavy plague weapon and flail. The difference between axes and swords and the other swords matters just as little as does the difference between greater plague cleaver and mace of contagion.
Yeah, hence the Part of simplification of melee weapons, what i disagree with is combi weapons. Or the fact that armor values don't exist anymore.. grumbles in longbeard....
Other than the fact that I've already pointed out that Poison is likely Anti-X and in the past poison created regular not Critical wounds.
No, poison in the past created Critical Wounds, they just didn't have that name. All that changed is the label, the thing itself is no different.
Poison created regular wounds. Poison could not create Critical Wounds. Critical Wounds didn't exist. There were no Critical Wounds. We can infer Poison NOW/WILL create critical wounds as Anti-(something biological).
JNAProductions wrote: I don’t think you can say it’s universally acceptable.
You can say it’s fine for you, and argue that it’s better for the health of the game, but HMBC’s point about how it feels is not without merit.
Ultimately, this is a game and hobby we do for fun. If it’s not fun, for whatever reason, something should be adjusted for you.
What? When did I say that it's universally acceptable? I even said that that I understand his complaint. That's kind of a weirdly high energy response to me.
Other than the fact that I've already pointed out that Poison is likely Anti-X and in the past poison created regular not Critical wounds.
No, poison in the past created Critical Wounds, they just didn't have that name. All that changed is the label, the thing itself is no different.
Poison created regular wounds. Poison could not create Critical Wounds. Critical Wounds didn't exist. There were no Critical Wounds. We can infer Poison NOW/WILL create critical wounds as Anti-(something biological).
JNAProductions wrote: I don’t think you can say it’s universally acceptable.
You can say it’s fine for you, and argue that it’s better for the health of the game, but HMBC’s point about how it feels is not without merit.
Ultimately, this is a game and hobby we do for fun. If it’s not fun, for whatever reason, something should be adjusted for you.
What? When did I say that it's universally acceptable? I even said that that I understand his complaint. That's kind of a weirdly high energy response to me.
but losing some of that flavor is ok
Admittedly we don’t have all the information yet, but from what has been revealed it seems to me the addition of Critical Wounds is purely semantic and not a mechanical change from 9th. I don’t really see why people are getting so worked up about it.
Admittedly we don’t have all the information yet, but from what has been revealed it seems to me the addition of Critical Wounds is purely semantic and not a mechanical change from 9th. I don’t really see why people are getting so worked up about it.
Yeah, this. At the moment, it seems clear to the great majority of people that this is just a semantic clarification/keywording of a pre-existing concept, to avoid repetition and to allow for easy triggering of other abilities. I don't get why 'That's how you do them, that's not what they are' needs to be repeated in a Sheldon Cooper-esque way for pages and pages. We have literally no way to 'solve' this conundrum-to-some by discussing, as we can't glimpse some sort of ground truth GW is currently hiding from the Akashic records or whatever.
Not Online!!! wrote: Yeah, hence the Part of simplification of melee weapons, what i disagree with is combi weapons. Or the fact that armor values don't exist anymore.. grumbles in longbeard....
I honestly have mixed feelings on the combi part.
On the one hand, I absolutely loathe having to hunt down or find someone to print tiny parts of a bolter which completely change what a unit can do. A flash git holds a gun made of 8 distinct pieces, and every single one of them is larger than a combi-melta or plasma of a blightlord terminator. Some of them are actual kombi-weapon parts. Somehow no one is breaking into in tears over their immersion because the obvious plasma cannon with kombi-KMB a flash git is holding has the same profile as the gun which is just 5 big shootas stapled together. And don't give any of that "power of believe" horsegak.
Then again, plasma, flamer and melta are so different game wise that picking one is an actual decision, and I feel that removing this decision would be an actual loss for the game. However, if your unit is locked into one of each, finding a good target for them is a wash anyways, so might as well roll the same profile to speed up the game...
In the end, I think everyone agrees that GW should just put enough bits on the sprues (once again, combi bits are TINY) like they did for MANz and then keep treating them like actual options. Under the premise of that not being an option and GW stubbornly insisting on NMNR, having one profile totally beats resolving one flamer, one plasma gun, one melta and one combi-bolter separately.
That said, I'm not convinced that all combi-weapons will look like the one on the terminator librarian. GW has blanked out tons of things on the early previews, what we see here might just be the rules for a combi-grav weapon or something.
The discussion about losing flavor in weapon names and consolidating similar profiles is interesting and I am of two minds about it.
On the hand, I appreciate a bit of simplifying all the different options. Not only does it make the game a bit faster if you don't know all the different weapons your opponent might field. But from a modeling perspective, it reduces a lot of analysis paralysis. My hobby is mostly spend modeling and painting, but I draw most fun out of modeling different characters in a squad. I like making up short stories about how they came to their equipment whilst looking at all the options on the kit, adding some spare bits here and there so each squad of guardsmen, Orks or space marines is a bit different. And I really struggled a lot with getting past the mindset of in-game effectiveness of a choice. I really liked about the new kill Team that I didn't have to worry about the price of an upgrade, because it was just assumed that I would take all the upgrades/specialists. And in this new version of 40k I will have less struggle justifying esthetic choices over tabletop performance. If it curbs some of the issues with tons of similar yet different weapons in a squad, leading to a lot of small roles of "this combi weapon than this special weapon than this other pistol that is almost the same but different" then I'm all for it, because I caught myself starting to equip units not based on a cool narrative but based on "this equipment will be a pain to resolve in battle". Worst example where the death guard Terminators, where each combi weapon was available once. So everyone got a combi bolter because I could just not be bothered resolving this mess in a game.
But, here is the thing: some of these issues could have been mitigated with smart sprue design. Why can I only build one of each combi weapon in a death guard terminator squad? Why aren't there enough special weapons so I can take the same weapon twice in some other squads? And some consolidation might just go too far, stripping out iconic weapons can upset more narratively minded people and I really get that. For me, modeling and gaming are more and more disconnected as started to force myself to care less on optimizing weapons, so having a "heavy melee weapon" instead at "power first, chain axe, and something I just might be forgetting" doesn't matter to much to me, but I really understand people who have enjoyed taking the correct weapon for the correct job, and getting the satisfaction and reward when the choice, investment and positioning pays off. I rarely got that to work for me, and the cases of "man, I should have brought this other weapon on my squad leader" were really frustrating. Yes, I'm not very good at the game, as I really didn't get to play a lot (maybe once a month and increasingly less).
That GW cut out the mental burden of considering more and more complex faction and sub-faction rules, good knows how many strategems, recent erratas that buff/debuff certain units and factions .... It makes me really look forward to 10th edition and I'm really liking the new morale system, so some weapon consolidations are more of an inconvenience to me. But the perspectives offered here and in other threads got me thinking again about it.
Sorry for the long post, just had to get those thoughts out of my head.
Tsagualsa wrote: Yeah, this. At the moment, it seems clear to the great majority of people that this is just a semantic clarification/keywording of a pre-existing concept, to avoid repetition and to allow for easy triggering of other abilities. I don't get why 'That's how you do them, that's not what they are' needs to be repeated in a Sheldon Cooper-esque way for pages and pages. We have literally no way to 'solve' this conundrum-to-some by discussing, as we can't glimpse some sort of ground truth GW is currently hiding from the Akashic records or whatever.
Poison created regular wounds. Poison could not create Critical Wounds. Critical Wounds didn't exist. There were no Critical Wounds. We can infer Poison NOW/WILL create critical wounds as Anti-(something biological).
The wounds created by poison were not given a special label, however they did ignore toughness, which is what the things that are now called critical wounds do.
Because the term critical wound now exists, we don't have to list all the circumstance that can cause critical wounds every time we have a rule that keys off them; instead, we can just say, "On a Critical Wound, this weapon deals a mortal wound instead of regular damage." or "On a Critical Wound, this weapon gains AP 1."
You've been told this at least 10 times. Everyone seems to get it except you.
As much as I part in jest suggested something similar for combi weapons I don't think a single profile is right.
My stance is that combi weapons over the last few editions have turned squads into specialist niches they otherwise weren't designed to fill. Such as termicide squads as a classic example, or blobs of 10 slaaneshi terminators with plasma guns. Likewise they also fill the hole of "extra special weapon" in units that maybe aren't meant to have them. If sister dominions were supposed to be all flamers, why limit the superior to not having a flamer, but then immediately provide a work around via combi?
So I get why people are upset by the change and its a little more radical than I envisaged, but at the same time I do fully understand it. Plus as Jidmah said, other armies have weapons with cobbled bits on or mixed barrels, but it's only an issue in this instance because there's historic precedent.
Not Online!!! wrote: Yeah, hence the Part of simplification of melee weapons, what i disagree with is combi weapons. Or the fact that armor values don't exist anymore.. grumbles in longbeard....
I honestly have mixed feelings on the combi part.
On the one hand, I absolutely loathe having to hunt down or find someone to print tiny parts of a bolter which completely change what a unit can do. A flash git holds a gun made of 8 distinct pieces, and every single one of them is larger than a combi-melta or plasma of a blightlord terminator. Some of them are actual kombi-weapon parts. Somehow no one is breaking into in tears over their immersion because the obvious plasma cannon with kombi-KMB a flash git is holding has the same profile as the gun which is just 5 big shootas stapled together. And don't give any of that "power of believe" horsegak.
TBF, Posaz and their guns always were described as ramshakle beyond any reason. That said, they always only had 1 type of gun afaik. Unlike Nobs, and their combi-weaponry.
Then again, plasma, flamer and melta are so different game wise that picking one is an actual decision, and I feel that removing this decision would be an actual loss for the game. However, if your unit is locked into one of each, finding a good target for them is a wash anyways, so might as well roll the same profile to speed up the game...
In the end, I think everyone agrees that GW should just put enough bits on the sprues (once again, combi bits are TINY) like they did for MANz and then keep treating them like actual options.
Under the premise of that not being an option and GW stubbornly insisting on NMNR, having one profile totally beats resolving one flamer, one plasma gun, one melta and one combi-bolter separately.
I think the worst offender on this problem is the new CSM terminator kit. That standardised chainaxes as standard weapon during their 8th release, only to have a singular chainaxe in the whole stupid box. but he, you have enough fences to make a graveyard gothic fence for about 10 CM. (no joke,) in the sprue. But 5 combibolters and then 5 consecutive bits was too much usefullness for GW.
That said, I'm not convinced that all combi-weapons will look like the one on the terminator librarian. GW has blanked out tons of things on the early previews, what we see here might just be the rules for a combi-grav weapon or something.
May well be the case. But for me it represents regardless a loss on the mechanical front if they become a single weapon. Just as a combi skorcha isn't the same as a combi-rocket.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: As much as I part in jest suggested something similar for combi weapons I don't think a single profile is right.
My stance is that combi weapons over the last few editions have turned squads into specialist niches they otherwise weren't designed to fill. Such as termicide squads as a classic example, or blobs of 10 slaaneshi terminators with plasma guns. Likewise they also fill the hole of "extra special weapon" in units that maybe aren't meant to have them. If sister dominions were supposed to be all flamers, why limit the superior to not having a flamer, but then immediately provide a work around via combi?
So I get why people are upset by the change and its a little more radical than I envisaged, but at the same time I do fully understand it. Plus as Jidmah said, other armies have weapons with cobbled bits on or mixed barrels, but it's only an issue in this instance because there's historic precedent.
Jid is right insofar as flashgits weapons look cobbled together but they always shared a singular profile / squad and always had a singular purpose (when they were not overly expensive paperweights for once).
Meanwhile orks have classic combiweaponry aswell/ had them on nobs (which is still one of the best ever kits but also suffers from not enough bits to fully equip a squad... 4 big choppas, 2 combi rockits, 1 combi skorcha and other shenanigans).
It would feel wrong there, that combirockits now als suddendly are rolled together with skorchas.
Not Online!!! wrote: It would feel wrong there, that combirockits now als suddendly are rolled together with skorchas.
Eh. Neither really ever was a defining or even decent option for the unit.
In the end, it would just be yet another wargear option removed from our line. Remember when nobz could have shootas or boss poles or cybork bodies or bikes? The only army to come close to losing as many options as orks since 5th are drukhari.
Admittedly we don’t have all the information yet, but from what has been revealed it seems to me the addition of Critical Wounds is purely semantic and not a mechanical change from 9th. I don’t really see why people are getting so worked up about it.
Except its not a semantic change - its a "keyword" change and that's mechanics. I can't say why everyone else is, but they're revamping things and this feels like (so far) one of the "major" changes assuming there's more to it than Devastating Wounds upgrades - I'm guessing its going to be a framework for some of the subfaction deviations.
Poison created regular wounds. Poison could not create Critical Wounds. Critical Wounds didn't exist. There were no Critical Wounds. We can infer Poison NOW/WILL create critical wounds as Anti-(something biological).
The wounds created by poison were not given a special label, however they did ignore toughness, which is what the things that are now called critical wounds do.
Because the term critical wound now exists, we don't have to list all the circumstance that can cause critical wounds every time we have a rule that keys off them; instead, we can just say, "On a Critical Wound, this weapon deals a mortal wound instead of regular damage." or "On a Critical Wound, this weapon gains AP 1."
You've been told this at least 10 times. Everyone seems to get it except you.
So you're saying Poison didn't create critical wounds? Same as I just said? Where did you see Critical Wounds are AP1? That's the sort of thing I'm wondering about - what else besides feeding Devastating Wounds.
On the one hand, I absolutely loathe having to hunt down or find someone to print tiny parts of a bolter which completely change what a unit can do. A flash git holds a gun made of 8 distinct pieces, and every single one of them is larger than a combi-melta or plasma of a blightlord terminator. Some of them are actual kombi-weapon parts. Somehow no one is breaking into in tears over their immersion because the obvious plasma cannon with kombi-KMB a flash git is holding has the same profile as the gun which is just 5 big shootas stapled together. And don't give any of that "power of believe" horsegak.
Then again, plasma, flamer and melta are so different game wise that picking one is an actual decision, and I feel that removing this decision would be an actual loss for the game. However, if your unit is locked into one of each, finding a good target for them is a wash anyways, so might as well roll the same profile to speed up the game...
That is because in the end, orks are not space marines. Same with tyranids, eldar etc. The majority of opponents will not care, if the specific custodes army is painted the "right way". With marines, there is enough people carrying about how things look, not just for rules punishing you for wrong painting exist, but GW creating an entire full extra game, where marine players can have everything painted the right now, weapons/helmets/etc put only on specific types of MK armours etc. So yeah, while non marines player may not care how an actual Kraken tyranid strain looks like, the marine players will react with non acceptance to someone trying to play with a DA army (not a succesor one) painted the wrong shade of green or even something that isn't green/black/bone coloured.
Eh. Neither really ever was a defining or even decent option for the unit.
Which means that maybe it won't be that bad. Problems start when a faction, like my dudes existed, which is defined by "magical" bolters, multitiude of various power weapons and gear options, and litteral magic. And GW says that it will streamline all three of those things. Who knows maybe this time they will get it right. But I have seen how different the 6-9th rules were from 5th when the army actualy had options and multiple builds, GW would have to focus a lot on rules writing, for a faction that has 1(one) new model and no updated planed within the next 12 months.
Ain't a GK specific thing either. I know this won't find much sympathy among non marine players, but to marine player factions, they are playing the faction and not marines. A WS or IF player wants to play WS or IF. A Deathwing player wants to play deathwing, and not even RW or Greenwing. Never mind be forced in to playing ultamarines or ironhands. In the end I expect 10th, to be the same as 8th and 9th over time. GW does a lot of changes for changes sake and in the end editions play out the same way. They have no entice to change, till sales start to drop hard, and I don't think it will happen soon, considering they can't produce enough stuff that people want. We potentialy be a few step away from going mainstream. With the death of some frenchises, there is a void to fill out.
Dudeface wrote: As much as I part in jest suggested something similar for combi weapons I don't think a single profile is right.
My stance is that combi weapons over the last few editions have turned squads into specialist niches they otherwise weren't designed to fill. Such as termicide squads as a classic example, or blobs of 10 slaaneshi terminators with plasma guns. Likewise they also fill the hole of "extra special weapon" in units that maybe aren't meant to have them. If sister dominions were supposed to be all flamers, why limit the superior to not having a flamer, but then immediately provide a work around via combi?
So I get why people are upset by the change and its a little more radical than I envisaged, but at the same time I do fully understand it. Plus as Jidmah said, other armies have weapons with cobbled bits on or mixed barrels, but it's only an issue in this instance because there's historic precedent.
Some of this is due to the 7th-8th ed changes, as in the 3rd-7 paradigm you only got one shot with the special weapon half. So you had one Plasma/Melta/Flamer/Grav volley, and then you're back to bolters again. Since they have unlimited shots now, and in many cases cost the same or enough more you'll happily pay, it's become more of a no-brainer choice.
A shaped charge weapon that has always been a light anti-tank weapon is now... a light anti-tank weapon? Most surprising, yes. As the used range of Toughness values expands, similar adjustments in weapon strengths follow the trend.
A shaped charge weapon that has always been a light anti-tank weapon is now... a light anti-tank weapon? Most surprising, yes. As the used range of Toughness values expands, similar adjustments in weapon strengths follow the trend.
Since when is a grenade launcher a shaped charge weapon ?
Dudeface wrote: As much as I part in jest suggested something similar for combi weapons I don't think a single profile is right.
My stance is that combi weapons over the last few editions have turned squads into specialist niches they otherwise weren't designed to fill. Such as termicide squads as a classic example, or blobs of 10 slaaneshi terminators with plasma guns. Likewise they also fill the hole of "extra special weapon" in units that maybe aren't meant to have them. If sister dominions were supposed to be all flamers, why limit the superior to not having a flamer, but then immediately provide a work around via combi?
So I get why people are upset by the change and its a little more radical than I envisaged, but at the same time I do fully understand it. Plus as Jidmah said, other armies have weapons with cobbled bits on or mixed barrels, but it's only an issue in this instance because there's historic precedent.
On the other side it doesn't make sense for Guard to get special weapons and CSM terminators just...can't? I expect the combi we saw was just for that model, but even that doesn't make a lot of sense. Still CSM Terminators would have just their single heavy option compared to loyalists. None of it adds up. At this point I think I'll be surprised if we do lose them while Guard can resurrect Sentinels.
Dudeface wrote: As much as I part in jest suggested something similar for combi weapons I don't think a single profile is right.
My stance is that combi weapons over the last few editions have turned squads into specialist niches they otherwise weren't designed to fill. Such as termicide squads as a classic example, or blobs of 10 slaaneshi terminators with plasma guns. Likewise they also fill the hole of "extra special weapon" in units that maybe aren't meant to have them. If sister dominions were supposed to be all flamers, why limit the superior to not having a flamer, but then immediately provide a work around via combi?
So I get why people are upset by the change and its a little more radical than I envisaged, but at the same time I do fully understand it. Plus as Jidmah said, other armies have weapons with cobbled bits on or mixed barrels, but it's only an issue in this instance because there's historic precedent.
On the other side it doesn't make sense for Guard to get special weapons and CSM terminators just...can't? I expect the combi we saw was just for that model, but even that doesn't make a lot of sense. Still CSM Terminators would have just their single heavy option compared to loyalists. None of it adds up. At this point I think I'll be surprised if we do lose them while Guard can resurrect Sentinels.
It's a matter of scope, yes guard squads should get special weapons, but they're not a special weapon squad who should all have a super flexible special weapon strapped to a standard anti-infantry firearm. That changes the units purpose to such a pivotal degree and interacts badly with deepstrike and that resilient armour imo.
If they had x per y combi weapons, maybe 1 or 2 per 5, then that would be a nice extra, rather than a redefinition of the unit.
That said I'd rather a profile that sat between flamer and plasma, then another between plasma and melta.
Simply not having a reason to exist. Although I'd argue S9 isn't quite anti tank either.
Multimelta is S9
Having a Krak grenade and a Multimelta be the same Strength feels wierd.
Because AP, Damage, and Melta mean nothing when comparing the weapon
Nice one
Of course they do. But if S9 "isn't quite anti tank", but it's also the Strength value of a historically premere anti tank weapon, something feels off.
Yea it is weird for MM, which was the go to weapon for quite a while to seem like it in the same arena as a krak grenade. It still has it's other benefits, but it's certainly something we have to get use to as I think it finally gives the lascannon room to breathe.
Insectum7 wrote: Well, my question now is; if the Krak Grenade is S9, what will the Krak Missile be?
S9 - it was in the termie sheet for the cyclone.
Which is fine, really, if you consider krak missiles to be more akin to RPGs of today. Dedicated tank killers like today's ATGMs are represented by the Hunter-Killer, with a relatively whopping S14, -3 AP and D D6.
Insectum7 wrote: Well, my question now is; if the Krak Grenade is S9, what will the Krak Missile be?
S9 - it was in the termie sheet for the cyclone.
Which is fine, really, if you consider krak missiles to be more akin to RPGs of today. Dedicated tank killers like today's ATGMs are represented by the Hunter-Killer, with a relatively whopping S14, -3 AP and D D6.
It's the future, man. It could be whatever.
The real issue I have is that Missile Launchers have been an uncompelling choice for a long, long time. S10 Krak and S5 Frag might get them on the table again.
The real issue I have is that Missile Launchers have been an uncompelling choice for a long, long time. S10 Krak and S5 Frag might get them on the table again.
Cynically, i have to respond that old-fashioned and time honored anti-tank weapons that everybody already owns are uncool and out this edition, and the new cool thing is the new stuff like their redone field batteries or some Primaris stuff that you'd have to buy anew... That trend has been ongoing for a while now, with the addition of things like Heavy Lascannons, Las-talons, Laser Destroyer turrets etc. that in many cases have no real reason to exist.
The real issue I have is that Missile Launchers have been an uncompelling choice for a long, long time. S10 Krak and S5 Frag might get them on the table again.
Cynically, i have to respond that old-fashioned and time honored anti-tank weapons that everybody already owns are uncool and out this edition, and the new cool thing is the new stuff like their redone field batteries or some Primaris stuff that you'd have to buy anew... That trend has been ongoing for a while now, with the addition of things like Heavy Lascannons, Las-talons, Laser Destroyer turrets etc. that in many cases have no real reason to exist.
I didn't want to go down that route, but yeah. Krak Grenades get an update because that's the "special" that Intercessors are stuck with. Land Raider Lascannons get an upgrade because they want to move the kit, but Tactical Squad Lascannons stay the same.
But at the same time, new Terminator kit but the Cyclone remains un-upgraded. So I don't want to make too many assumptions.
The real issue I have is that Missile Launchers have been an uncompelling choice for a long, long time. S10 Krak and S5 Frag might get them on the table again.
Cynically, i have to respond that old-fashioned and time honored anti-tank weapons that everybody already owns are uncool and out this edition, and the new cool thing is the new stuff like their redone field batteries or some Primaris stuff that you'd have to buy anew... That trend has been ongoing for a while now, with the addition of things like Heavy Lascannons, Las-talons, Laser Destroyer turrets etc. that in many cases have no real reason to exist.
I didn't want to go down that route, but yeah. Krak Grenades get an update because that's the "special" that Intercessors are stuck with. Land Raider Lascannons get an upgrade because they want to move the kit, but Tactical Squad Lascannons stay the same.
But at the same time, new Terminator kit but the Cyclone remains un-upgraded. So I don't want to make too many assumptions.
The LC on the Baneblade is same as the landraider.
Other than the fact that I've already pointed out that Poison is likely Anti-X and in the past poison created regular not Critical wounds.
No, poison in the past created Critical Wounds, they just didn't have that name. All that changed is the label, the thing itself is no different.
Poison created regular wounds. Poison could not create Critical Wounds. Critical Wounds didn't exist. There were no Critical Wounds. We can infer Poison NOW/WILL create critical wounds as Anti-(something biological).
Relax and take three deep breaths. Look deep inside yourself. You will find that critical wounds were there this entire time and you were the one that was missing.
Namaste.
Honestly if you're still having trouble we can figure out a way to explain this. I think pretty much everyone here grasped it this first time but these abstractions can be hard for some people. What's the part that you don't understand, which aspect of it confuses you?
"its been twenty years, warhammer 50k just released, Breton is still confused about critical wounds even if GW has adressed the issue multiple times already"
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea it is weird for MM, which was the go to weapon for quite a while to seem like it in the same arena as a krak grenade. It still has it's other benefits, but it's certainly something we have to get use to as I think it finally gives the lascannon room to breathe.
Yeah, let me just whip out all those lascannons I don't have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: "its been twenty years, warhammer 50k just released, Breton is still confused about critical wounds even if GW has adressed the issue multiple times already"
I have a coworker like this. Took almost a month to teach him how to log into the computers.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea it is weird for MM, which was the go to weapon for quite a while to seem like it in the same arena as a krak grenade. It still has it's other benefits, but it's certainly something we have to get use to as I think it finally gives the lascannon room to breathe.
... sort of.
Melta has always been a weapon which had issues penetrating armors. S8 was exactly the same as a krak missile indeed. Where it shined was in (very) close range when it gained an additional d6 of penetration. Without that though you were penetrating a predator on a 6, and you could never penetrate a leman russ.
The melta is still the same weapon with not so good penetration chances but with high damage (AP1 at the time). What changed is that now instead of gaining higher penetration chances at short range, it instead gained additional damage.
The real issue I have is that Missile Launchers have been an uncompelling choice for a long, long time. S10 Krak and S5 Frag might get them on the table again.
Cynically, i have to respond that old-fashioned and time honored anti-tank weapons that everybody already owns are uncool and out this edition, and the new cool thing is the new stuff like their redone field batteries or some Primaris stuff that you'd have to buy anew... That trend has been ongoing for a while now, with the addition of things like Heavy Lascannons, Las-talons, Laser Destroyer turrets etc. that in many cases have no real reason to exist.
I didn't want to go down that route, but yeah. Krak Grenades get an update because that's the "special" that Intercessors are stuck with. Land Raider Lascannons get an upgrade because they want to move the kit, but Tactical Squad Lascannons stay the same.
But at the same time, new Terminator kit but the Cyclone remains un-upgraded. So I don't want to make too many assumptions.
The LC on the Baneblade is same as the landraider.
A shaped charge weapon that has always been a light anti-tank weapon is now... a light anti-tank weapon? Most surprising, yes. As the used range of Toughness values expands, similar adjustments in weapon strengths follow the trend.
Since when is a grenade launcher a shaped charge weapon ?
It's been able to fire Krak since at least 2e. So a very long time.
A shaped charge weapon that has always been a light anti-tank weapon is now... a light anti-tank weapon? Most surprising, yes. As the used range of Toughness values expands, similar adjustments in weapon strengths follow the trend.
Since when is a grenade launcher a shaped charge weapon ?
It's been able to fire Krak since at least 2e. So a very long time.
Krak's been the same since forever bar the name, yeah. By 1992 (Battle Manual, pic below) when they collected all the fast moving bits of Rogue Trader, it had already settled into the k while the original 1987 version called it "crack" for being... an anti-tank weapon designed to crack heavy armour. Go figure.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea it is weird for MM, which was the go to weapon for quite a while to seem like it in the same arena as a krak grenade. It still has it's other benefits, but it's certainly something we have to get use to as I think it finally gives the lascannon room to breathe.
... sort of.
Melta has always been a weapon which had issues penetrating armors. S8 was exactly the same as a krak missile indeed. Where it shined was in (very) close range when it gained an additional d6 of penetration. Without that though you were penetrating a predator on a 6, and you could never penetrate a leman russ.
The melta is still the same weapon with not so good penetration chances but with high damage (AP1 at the time). What changed is that now instead of gaining higher penetration chances at short range, it instead gained additional damage.
But the efficient way to use melta was to drop something on top of a vehicle, be within half range get the extra dice on penetration which ment it was better at hurting vehicles then the potentialy stronger +1str lascanon.
Doing extra damage is all well and nice, when you get to the part where you roll damage. Melta could still work, but only for armies that can spam it or get re-rolls to wound easily. If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
Also the full-size Ballistus kit will probably have options, what we're seeing right now is imho just the card for the ETB variant in the starter box and possibly combat patrol.
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
I was thinking more about custodes lists and similar. I sold my dreads after GW made the twin double autocanon ones in to legends. I am not very keen on rebuying them, in fact am not very keen on buying anything new for my army to be honest, without seeing a new codex and that is a year or more away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsagualsa 809431 11530866 wrote:
Also the full-size Ballistus kit will probably have options, what we're seeing right now is imho just the card for the ETB variant in the starter box and possibly combat patrol.
GK don't have primaris tanks or dreadnoughts. But that is besides the point. To units that may have been potentialy problematic with melta it doesn't matter, to armies that have very little in form of anti tank, it doesn't help to have weaker melta or stronger lascanons, because form the looks of it, if one doesn't have really good guns or can spam the less powerful weaker ones and edition of vehicles maybe a bit problematic. But who knows, for all we know there can be a faction that gets so powerful anti tank rules, that the vehicle edition is going to be only something in GW dreams.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Pretty sure Frag Grenade went up a point of Strength too. Always used to be S3 for Grenade, S4 for Missile?
No idea if that’s new for 10th though.
Yeah it looks like they have upgraded grenade launchers (cadian datasheet) to the same stats as man portable missile launchers (terminator datasheet) but not as strong as vehicle mounted missile launchers (new dread datasheet). I would guess the thinking is that having the grenade launchers weaker than missle launchers was making them such a small upgrade over a lasgun that there was no point.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Pretty sure Frag Grenade went up a point of Strength too. Always used to be S3 for Grenade, S4 for Missile?
No idea if that’s new for 10th though.
Yeah it looks like they have upgraded grenade launchers (cadian datasheet) to the same stats as man portable missile launchers (terminator datasheet) but not as strong as vehicle mounted missile launchers (new dread datasheet). I would guess the thinking is that having the grenade launchers weaker than missle launchers was making them such a small upgrade over a lasgun that there was no point.
Well, at the time the Guard codex was new a lot of people on here were saying just that (that the Grenade Launcher was never worth it) so the logic works out.
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.
Karol wrote: I was thinking more about custodes lists and similar. I sold my dreads after GW made the twin double autocanon ones in to legends. I am not very keen on rebuying them, in fact am not very keen on buying anything new for my army to be honest, without seeing a new codex and that is a year or more away.
If we can take their statement at face value the datacards should largely stay the same so you shouldn't need the codex to assess most of it. The codex will just change which units are more or less viable in each detachment given.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Pretty sure Frag Grenade went up a point of Strength too. Always used to be S3 for Grenade, S4 for Missile?
No idea if that’s new for 10th though.
The 9th edition codex has frags on the launcher at D6 and S3. This D3 S4, but with a better scaling on blast. Seems decent.
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.
I imagine Sisters are going to have some Holy Trinity style army rule to keep their identity functional. Hopefully without forcing weird list building.
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.
they never said it could. they said dreadnought. not dreadnought equivalent of other factions.
I still want to see the Blast rule written down just to make sure we aren't missing something, if it is:
1~5 models (which includes lone models like vehicles): +1 attack
6~10: +2
11~15: +3
It feels off.
It gets wonky as soon as you give every model in a 5 man or 10 man unit a blast weapon. Examples from 9th - Einhyr Hearthguard, Warp Spiders. 10 Warp Spiders as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule would get 10d6 + 40 shots (75 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 10 if you attach a Leader model to push the unit from 16~20 to 21~25.
It gets really wild if you can dual wield blast weapons (and have them not be twin linked). Examples from 9th - Desolation Squad, Crisis Suits with AFB. 10 Desolation Squad as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule and Super Frag as their main weapon would get 10d3 + 30 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 (150 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 20 if you attach a Leader model.
Of course, we've not seen those units yet. I'm mainly interested to see if they spotted the problem and found a fix. I think if Blast works as we think, you could even have a compelling 1 shot weapon with Blast on a 10 man squad.
CSM, Necrons and IG have all looked a bit undercooked to me. My (conspiracy) theory is:
- That Space Marines and Tyranids are getting their codex rules previewed.
- Everyone else will have their index rules previewed.
- This leaves room for GW to add another 20% to the later codexes to sell them.
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.
they never said it could. they said dreadnought. not dreadnought equivalent of other factions.
They were talking about melta vs lascannons in general terms before that. The example of the dreadnought was the first 'marine specific' thing they explicitly mentioned; yet the entire scenario was clearly unconcerned with other imperial forces.
'If melta isn't good anymore, just take lascannons' is deeply annoying to hear when you have melta on basically every platform in your army and precisely 0 lascannons.
I'm not really worried about it from a balance perspective, but it is yet another example of everyone just assuming marines for everything.
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.
I was answering Karol's comment.
I'm pretty certain sisters will get a rule that buffs the holy trinity somehow. Unironically "wait and see" before freaking out
The only rule to buff the Holy Trinity Sisters may get is a Stratagem.
However, I won't be surprised if Sister of Battle weapons are not exactly the same as those used by other Imperial Forces. They may very well have a Sororitas Bolter that is different from the Bolter we saw on the Legionnaire. This would go along with the current Ministorum Flamers and Artificer-Crafted Storm Bolters that are better than the mundane versions of those weapons.
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.
they never said it could. they said dreadnought. not dreadnought equivalent of other factions.
They were talking about melta vs lascannons in general terms before that. The example of the dreadnought was the first 'marine specific' thing they explicitly mentioned; yet the entire scenario was clearly unconcerned with other imperial forces.
'If melta isn't good anymore, just take lascannons' is deeply annoying to hear when you have melta on basically every platform in your army and precisely 0 lascannons.
I'm not really worried about it from a balance perspective, but it is yet another example of everyone just assuming marines for everything.
luckily for you little ladies GW set the edition up so every single unit could have different stats for the exact same weapons. we've seen marine meltas, SoB meltas might be much better.
alextroy wrote: The only rule to buff the Holy Trinity Sisters may get is a Stratagem.
However, I won't be surprised if Sister of Battle weapons are not exactly the same as those used by other Imperial Forces. They may very well have a Sororitas Bolter that is different from the Bolter we saw on the Legionnaire. This would go along with the current Ministorum Flamers and Artificer-Crafted Storm Bolters that are better than the mundane versions of those weapons.
I really does seem as if Meltas have stayed relatively similar to their 9th counter-parts despite everything else getting tougher and other weapons getting stronger.
I don't play my tiny guard force very often, but the guard previews seem pretty solid?
I never picked up their latest codex, but the orders seem to be streamlined. Flat movement bonuses (that don't require advance rolls) and stat buffs rather than requiring extra rolling. Take Cover and Duty and Honor seem like genuinely interesting tools in the toolbox. My only very minor gripe with the orders is that FRFSRF and Take Aim are both kill more betterer rules that don't really change the way units play, but that's fine. I assume that FRFSRF is superior to Take Aim on RF weapons right? So that people won't be tempted to just always use Take Aim? Not sure how I feel about plasma benefitting from FRFSRF, but not losing sleep over it.
Shock Troopers letting you treat objectives as sticky is neat. I hope to see more rules like that.
Battlecannons being better at anti-tank than meltaguns feels a little heretical, but I guess the AP does matter for a lot. I was a little iffy on the last few army previews, but this one seems like a fluffy, fun to play set of options so far.
Yeah, Ordnance Weapons did get bonuses against vehicles, its just that due to the scatter it was more effective going after blobs of infantry. IIRC, if you didn't get the hole over the vehicle your attack dealt half-damage, and that was usually enough to just end up not dealing damage at all.
Ordinance did get 2d6 and take the highest result, which was nice. It was also a blast, so hit Open Topped vehicles twice. Plus Ordinance got its own Damage chart for 3-4(?), and maybe a bonus to damage for 5+(?). I remember even the lowly Whirlwind being pretty effective when engaging Trukks and DE Raiders. And the Demolisher Cannon was terrifying.
Looking at the rules we got yesterday, the Demolisher cannon is still pretty terrifying. I like the D6+3 hits, +1 for every 5 models in the target unit as well (is it ever 5 above 5, or just every 5?).
And that's good. I still remember when the Demolisher was first introduced. It was a properly scary gun, and the description they gave was that the whole tank lifts off the ground from the recoil. Hard as nails - highest armour in the game, IIRC - and just capable of levelling anything... including itself, during one of my worst games of 3rd ever, where a Demolisher scattered onto and killed itself. That was a bad game.
^Yah, the fact that it could get the result "Destroys transport and kills everyone on board" made it a must take for me in 4th ed. The psycological factor was immense.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Now you’re “one per ten” for each Special Weapon, giving the Grenade Launcher a little extra oomph does make sense.
Cadian Shock Troops are 2 per ten so the new 10E unit composition with a command squad attached might have five special weapons. My preference would be three grenade launchers and two plasma guns but some of the other special weapons are viable alternatives.
VladimirHerzog wrote: "its been twenty years, warhammer 50k just released, Breton is still confused about critical wounds even if GW has adressed the issue multiple times already"
I've said I want to know more, I've said nobody here could answer it so I'm waiting for the rulebook, and how many years from now will you still be lying about what other people said?
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
Plus that whole new Dread being shipped for loyalists with a TLLC, and a Super Krak launcher.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Pretty sure Frag Grenade went up a point of Strength too. Always used to be S3 for Grenade, S4 for Missile?
VladimirHerzog wrote: "its been twenty years, warhammer 50k just released, Breton is still confused about critical wounds even if GW has adressed the issue multiple times already"
I've said I want to know more, I've said nobody here could answer it so I'm waiting for the rulebook, and how many years from now will you still be lying about what other people said?
Karol wrote: If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.
your dreads can take twinlascannons instead
Plus that whole new Dread being shipped for loyalists with a TLLC, and a Super Krak launcher.
You don't seem to accept the answer of "Critical Wounds are unlikely to do anything on their own."
I'm pretty certain sisters will get a rule that buffs the holy trinity somehow. Unironically "wait and see" before freaking out
Or changes it. You don't sell new models if you don't change up the top tier units and the elemental flavor of the month every so often.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: You don't seem to accept the answer of "Critical Wounds are unlikely to do anything on their own."
You don't seem to accept the part where I said What Else interacts?
I've said they might do something on their own, we don't know.
I've said a handful of Devastating Wounds upgrades doesn't seem worth the effort of making a new box of wounds - so what else plays?
I've said it (to me) feels like one of the things they could be using to differentiate subfactions or playstyles etc with so much else going away.
At what point did I say they would do something on their own? I pointed out it was a possibility while listing a number of things they could be a part of.
Lately all I've been doing is pointing out where people have lied about what I said. What part of that do you have trouble accepting while doing the lying yourself?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I really does seem as if Meltas have stayed relatively similar to their 9th counter-parts despite everything else getting tougher and other weapons getting stronger.
Melta was arguably the flavor of the month for 9th - when Eradicators came out. Plasma was arguably the flavor of the month for 8th when Hellblasters came out. Before that was arguably Grav. I'd say Flame is overdue, but they don't appear to be doing anything especially nice for them.
Breton wrote: At what point did I say they would do something on their own? I pointed out it was a possibility while listing a number of things they could be a part of.
Well, there was this:
Breton wrote: Mortal Wounds invalidate (potentially) all saves. Will Critical Wounds do anything at all? invalidate USR saves like Feel No Pain? Invalidate Armor saves but not FNP and true invulns(thus creating three "tiers" of saves as well Armor-USR-Invuln)? Who knows, but it feels like the middle tier of wounds would/could slot in there somewhere.
Now, you're not saying there that it definitely will happen, but that certainly reads as you posing the possibility that CW will do something on their own.
Breton wrote: At what point did I say they would do something on their own? I pointed out it was a possibility while listing a number of things they could be a part of.
Well, there was this:
Breton wrote: Mortal Wounds invalidate (potentially) all saves. Will Critical Wounds do anything at all? invalidate USR saves like Feel No Pain? Invalidate Armor saves but not FNP and true invulns(thus creating three "tiers" of saves as well Armor-USR-Invuln)? Who knows, but it feels like the middle tier of wounds would/could slot in there somewhere.
Now, you're not saying there that it definitely will happen, but that certainly reads as you posing the possibility that CW will do something on their own.
We don't have the rulebook so there is that possibility - And that sounds an awful lot like
At what point did I say they would do something on their own? I pointed out it was a possibility while listing a number of things they could be a part of.
novembermike wrote: Breton, I think everyone reads your stuff the same way. If you don't like how they're reading it then it's on you to change how you write it.
I don't, I think a number of people do - and inject personal animus into their reading. Unless you can find someplace I said I don't understand how Critical Wounds are made, or that it's unacceptable they don't do more on their own.
novembermike wrote: Breton, I think everyone reads your stuff the same way. If you don't like how they're reading it then it's on you to change how you write it.
I don't, I think a number of people do - and inject personal animus into their reading. Unless you can find someplace I said I don't understand how Critical Wounds are made, or that it's unacceptable they don't do more on their own.
You're missing the point, you're questioning what a critical wound is, which inevitably prompts people to give you the definition we've been provided by GW. The conflict happens because the way you're directing your comments is causing it to look like a query, when either it's an inner monologue/rhetorical and you're not expecting a response, or alternatively like you have a lack of understanding of what GW has said.
In reality after it having gone on for half a dozen pages and people getting frustrated at you being offended by their attempts to explain or offer their insight, patience wears thin. But unless you phrase your position better you're going to keep getting what you have so far - people grumpily reiterating to you it's a mechanic to automatically wound on a roll of X.
Nobody can give you a rulebook definition with citation, nobody can tell you every rule they will combo with it or each unit entry it'll appear on. We can, however, give likely instances where weapons have a "wounds on X" mechanic, propose it'll replace those and potentially combo with other USR/abilities that key off critical wounds. We can also propose that it's usefulness is evident and knowing GW and their iterations of 40k it likely doesn't do anything on it's own beyond that normal wound on a value of X.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Thinking back through 3rd-7th, Battlecannons were never bad at taking out vehicles, it was just a waste of their ordnance marker.
I miss the old Armoured Company CA rules for 3.5 edition. Rerolling the scatter die was great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Since they put krak, which lore wise are shaped charges, in it.
Anti-tank HEAT grenades have been a thing since WW2.
* * * * *
I'm more interested in the fact you can attach 2 leader units, which can be 1 command squad. That's pretty nice.
Also, it brings up an interesting point on the medi-pack. If it remains the same 5+++ for the unit, if you attach it does that apply to the 20 Guardsmen as well? That's if it stays that is.
These are actually pretty disappointing. AP-2 Baneblade Cannon sucks. Also, the melee profile is massively nerfed. RF Heavy Stubber just comes off as GW trying to sell more Macharius and Dorn tanks.
Though autocannons are looking pretty decent now, an increase to S and D. Flat 3 damage that can be very easily spammed in Guard lists.
Also disappointing. I know they want to reduce AP across the board, but just looking at the Baneblade Demolisher Cannon it's likely going to cause some internal balance issues. If that demolisher remains AP-3 we're just going to go back to "opps, all demolishers" again.
Just one last thing I noticed. Lack of turret weapon? I would have assumed the Baneblade Cannon and Battle Cannon would have been BS3+ with all other weapons being 4+.
I'm looking forward to a 30 model unit of 20 shock troops with an attached command squad with ogryn bodyguard and attaches and another character with another bodyguard. The command squad medic will give the ogryn bodyguards 5+ FNP, and he can return a killed model to the unit. Good luck killing that 30 man blob, you will never get them below half strength. And did i mention the 10 special weapons ranging from grenade launchers to meltas and plasma weapons hitting on 3s ?
p5freak wrote: I'm looking forward to a 30 model unit of 20 shock troops with an attached command squad with ogryn bodyguard and attaches and another character with another bodyguard. The command squad medic will give the ogryn bodyguards 5+ FNP, and he can return a killed model to the unit. Good luck killing that 30 man blob, you will never get the below half strength. And did i mention the 10 special weapons ranging from greande launchers to meltas and plasma weapons hitting on 3s ?
I strongly suspect attaches will be gone now, so it'd be a 26 man blob. We also don't know what medics do, what bodyguards do, how many special weapons they can have, what they cost or any other mildly relevant information. You're also forgetting that wounds are allocated to the attached units before the characters as per the earlier previews, so you kill the 20 guardsmen first.
I felt that was a strange choice as well, especially given that BS is native to each weapon in 10th, meaning you don't need a special "Turret Weapon" exception/special rule: You can just give the turret weapon BS3+ and everything else BS4+.
And good point about the AP. AP-2 would have been a better choice for the Battlecannon, given its role and it means that the Demolisher isn't the default.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I felt that was a strange choice as well, especially given that BS is native to each weapon in 10th, meaning you don't need a special "Turret Weapon" exception/special rule: You can just give the turret weapon BS3+ and everything else BS4+.
And good point about the AP. AP-2 would have been a better choice for the Battlecannon, given its role and it means that the Demolisher isn't the default.
Assuming a tank commander gives them take aim then you'd have BS2+ turrets which isn't very guard-typical. Agree on the AP though.
Bit of an OTT reaction on the Baneblade, both here and FB groups I've seen.
Cons No turret weapon rule? Well we haven't seen the whole book yet have we?
Baneblade Cannon is Ap-2? For the whole of 9th people have been bitching about power creep, and they bitch when it's tuned down.
Melee profile nerfed? Well the BB only hit hard in Melee when you used a 2CP strat.
RF Stubber is a huge ploy to sell Macharius and Dorns? I've been playing Guard for close to 10 years and have never seen anyone use a Macharius. Giving a Stubber 3 extra shot isn't likely to change that.
Pros Can give cover to friendly units. If you have 1 Guardsman who isn't fully 100% visible to the enemy, then the whole unit gets cover.
Doesn't degrade as badly, now you lose accuracy at 1/3 of your wounds compared to 1/2.
Better OC, means you can't be taken off the objective by a couple of Grots.
Seen quite a few schmuks complaining about how it's worthless now. Wait until 10th and see.
These AM reveals are all kinds of perplexing for me:
- Born Soldiers is gone, apparently. Good riddance, but splashing orders are gone too, and that's sad.
- Speaking of which, Orders just being straight attribute buffs is bland af. Also, maximum lol for Take Cover actually limiting the cover save properly rather than doing a super-weird circumstantial exception like Benefit of Cover. So Mariens can get 2+ cover but Guardsmen? Get outta here stalker!
- The Drum-Fed Autogun is now an automatic marksman rifle of sorts. Huh. Dunno what you guys are smoking but S9 DD3 is not anti-tank nowadays, it is anti-MEQ - the Krak Grenade is basically a third Plasma Gun profile now.
- Can I use Reinforcements on a unit that was destroyed during a previous turn or phase? What does "was just destroyed" means?
- As soon as I saw the 20-strong Cadian squad option and the implication that Command Squads can join in, I knew that I will see a Dan Abnett book in the end. My Veterans died for this .
- With that Autocannon profile, Tauroxes will be pretty brawny. Now I have to figure out how to make a double-AC turret for my Chimeras.
Valkyrie wrote: If you have 1 Guardsman who isn't fully 100% visible to the enemy, then the whole unit gets cover.
Not how this works.
Only the model that isn't fully visible gets the cover. And I believe that's for ALL cover now, so no model gets a cover bonus because someone else in their unit has cover.
Could be wrong about general cover, but that's definitely what the text of the rolling fortress rule indicates.
Cons No turret weapon rule? Well we haven't seen the whole book yet have we?
Baneblade Cannon is Ap-2? For the whole of 9th people have been bitching about power creep, and they bitch when it's tuned down.
Melee profile nerfed? Well the BB only hit hard in Melee when you used a 2CP strat.
RF Stubber is a huge ploy to sell Macharius and Dorns? I've been playing Guard for close to 10 years and have never seen anyone use a Macharius. Giving a Stubber 3 extra shot isn't likely to change that.
- Highly doubtful that turret weapons will remain, considering all special rules are now apart of the datasheet. If it’s not there, then it’s not there.
- Baneblade still sucks now, it’s going to suck more in 10th. Not sure what you’re even referring to here. It’s not even that lethal right now. To give you an example a Baneblade Cannon now only kills 5 marines, assuming they have no other defensive buffs. That’s less than 100 points of casualties from a 430 point model.
- Melee profile is regardless of the stratagem. You lose 3 attacks, S9, AP-2, and D2. That’s a massive nerf.
- I’ve got 11 Macharius tanks, a bit of every variant. Cost and bad rules is the biggest issue, it’s a great looking model. Regardless, that’s 6-9 extra shots on a Dorn and 12-15 extra shots on a Macharius. That’s not nothing to sneeze at. Basically a tactical squads worth of bolter fire.
AtoMaki wrote: These AM reveals are all kinds of perplexing for me:
- Born Soldiers is gone, apparently. Good riddance, but splashing orders are gone too, and that's sad.
It's the detachment rule, and is almost exactly the same as now but with the caveat the unit hasn't moved.
- Speaking of which, Orders just being straight attribute buffs is bland af. Also, maximum lol for Take Cover actually limiting the cover save properly rather than doing a super-weird circumstantial exception like Benefit of Cover. So Mariens can get 2+ cover but Guardsmen? Get outta here stalker!
Marines can't get 2+ in cover.
- The Drum-Fed Autogun is now an automatic marksman rifle of sorts. Huh. Dunno what you guys are smoking but S9 DD3 is not anti-tank nowadays, it is anti-MEQ - the Krak Grenade is basically a third Plasma Gun profile now.
No infantry portable weapon constitutes as dedicated anti-armour, but that's sort of the point, anything you can take in volumes is less deadly to the big stuff
- Can I use Reinforcements on a unit that was destroyed during a previous turn or phase? What does "was just destroyed" means?
As much as I can see a need for a definition to prevent some weird ass interpretation of clear language, did you opponent kill it with their last interaction - use the strat. Have they killed something else since? They they haven't just killed it.
- As soon as I saw the 20-strong Cadian squad option and the implication that Command Squads can join in, I knew that I will see a Dan Abnett book in the end. My Veterans died for this .
Not sure what bearing it has on veterans?
- With that Autocannon profile, Tauroxes will be pretty brawny. Now I have to figure out how to make a double-AC turret for my Chimeras.
Valkyrie wrote: If you have 1 Guardsman who isn't fully 100% visible to the enemy, then the whole unit gets cover.
Not how this works.
Only the model that isn't fully visible gets the cover. And I believe that's for ALL cover now, so no model gets a cover bonus because someone else in their unit has cover.
Could be wrong about general cover, but that's definitely what the text of the rolling fortress rule indicates.
I read it the way Penitent posted it, but IMO the first wound removed would have to be the Guardsman actually in cover; which would remove the Baneblade "Cover" for subsequent enemies attacking this unit.
Valkyrie wrote: If you have 1 Guardsman who isn't fully 100% visible to the enemy, then the whole unit gets cover.
Not how this works.
Only the model that isn't fully visible gets the cover. And I believe that's for ALL cover now, so no model gets a cover bonus because someone else in their unit has cover.
Could be wrong about general cover, but that's definitely what the text of the rolling fortress rule indicates.
I read it the way Penitent posted it, but IMO the first wound removed would have to be the Guardsman actually in cover; which would remove the Baneblade "Cover" for subsequent enemies attacking this unit.
The Rolling Fortress rule states that models get the Benefit of Cover, and then again the BoC rule talks about models:
The actual question behind all of this is who does the allocating for an unit that has models in cover and models outside of cover.
EightFoldPath wrote: I still want to see the Blast rule written down just to make sure we aren't missing something, if it is:
1~5 models (which includes lone models like vehicles): +1 attack
6~10: +2
11~15: +3
It feels off.
It gets wonky as soon as you give every model in a 5 man or 10 man unit a blast weapon. Examples from 9th - Einhyr Hearthguard, Warp Spiders. 10 Warp Spiders as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule would get 10d6 + 40 shots (75 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 10 if you attach a Leader model to push the unit from 16~20 to 21~25.
It gets really wild if you can dual wield blast weapons (and have them not be twin linked). Examples from 9th - Desolation Squad, Crisis Suits with AFB. 10 Desolation Squad as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule and Super Frag as their main weapon would get 10d3 + 30 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 (150 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 20 if you attach a Leader model.
Of course, we've not seen those units yet. I'm mainly interested to see if they spotted the problem and found a fix. I think if Blast works as we think, you could even have a compelling 1 shot weapon with Blast on a 10 man squad.
CSM, Necrons and IG have all looked a bit undercooked to me. My (conspiracy) theory is:
- That Space Marines and Tyranids are getting their codex rules previewed.
- Everyone else will have their index rules previewed.
- This leaves room for GW to add another 20% to the later codexes to sell them.
You're jumping the gun on this when the grenade launcher went from D6 to D3. They're aware of the potential. Inceptors abused the hell out of the old rule and now will likely be twin linked instead.
Oh, they absolutely can. They just need to be shot at by an AP -1 weapon and get a +1 cover save modifier from somewhere. As the Benefit of Cover exception doesn't trigger in this case they get 2+ cover. Even if such modifier cannot be gained in the initial ruleset, it is still a possibility. Here note that if they flat limited BoC to 3+ like in the case of Take Cover, then this possibility would be non-existent.
Dudeface wrote: As much as I can see a need for a definition to prevent some weird ass interpretation of clear language, did you opponent kill it with their last interaction - use the strat. Have they killed something else since? They haven't just killed it.
Say, the enemy kills my Leman Russ in their Shooting phase. Then they charge and fight but don't kill anything. Can I revive my Russ in my Shooting phase? What if my Russ dies in my turn? Can I revive it in the enemy Shooting phase? As per the timing specification (When) it simply says "Any Phase" rather "immediately when one of your units has been destroyed", and "was just destroyed" gives quite a timing window. It was just destroyed in the battle a few turns ago too.
Wyldhunt wrote: Battlecannons being better at anti-tank than meltaguns feels a little heretical, but I guess the AP does matter for a lot. I was a little iffy on the last few army previews, but this one seems like a fluffy, fun to play set of options so far.
A Battlecannon is a bit of a different class of weapon.
In any case it does 2.4 to a T10 3+ vehicle. If a MM is still 2 shots -- 1.6 or 2.4 in half. If it's twin linked -- 1.3 and 2.
And that's 6.5 shots from the BC. MM is still pretty viable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Looking at the rules we got yesterday, the Demolisher cannon is still pretty terrifying. I like the D6+3 hits, +1 for every 5 models in the target unit as well (is it ever 5 above 5, or just every 5?).
And that's good. I still remember when the Demolisher was first introduced. It was a properly scary gun, and the description they gave was that the whole tank lifts off the ground from the recoil. Hard as nails - highest armour in the game, IIRC - and just capable of levelling anything... including itself, during one of my worst games of 3rd ever, where a Demolisher scattered onto and killed itself. That was a bad game.
Say, the enemy kills my Leman Russ in their Shooting phase. Then they charge and fight but don't kill anything. Can I revive my Russ in my Shooting phase? What if my Russ dies in my turn? Can I revive it in the enemy Shooting phase? As per the timing specification (When) it simply says "Any Phase" rather "immediately when one of your units has been destroyed", and "was just destroyed" gives quite a timing window. It was just destroyed in the battle a few turns ago too.
Oh, they absolutely can. They just need to be shot at by an AP -1 weapon and get a +1 cover save modifier from somewhere. As the Benefit of Cover exception doesn't trigger in this case they get 2+ cover. Even if such modifier cannot be gained in the initial ruleset, it is still a possibility. Here note that if they flat limited BoC to 3+ like in the case of Take Cover, then this possibility would be non-existent.
Given there are currently 0 examples of marines getting a cover save modifier, this is entirely moot until such time. The current design paradigm for GW seems to be if it was intended to give them a 2+, they'd give them a 2+ without a bundle of hoops to jump through, or a "+1 to save when not fully visible to opponent" rule, which would modify the base save up to 2+ and benefits of cover again don't kick in. Why this needs to be a complaint though? Don't know.
Say, the enemy kills my Leman Russ in their Shooting phase. Then they charge and fight but don't kill anything. Can I revive my Russ in my Shooting phase? What if my Russ dies in my turn? Can I revive it in the enemy Shooting phase? As per the timing specification (When) it simply says "Any Phase" rather "immediately when one of your units has been destroyed", and "was just destroyed" gives quite a timing window. It was just destroyed in the battle a few turns ago too.
What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?
Dudeface wrote: The current design paradigm for GW seems to be if it was intended to give them a 2+, they'd give them a 2+ without a bundle of hoops to jump through
On the other hand, if they intended to not give them a 2+ then they would simply not have that loophole, wouldn't they? Just limit BoC to 3+, end of story. But it is not limited to 3+ it just ceases to exist when another bundle of hoops is jumped through.
Dudeface wrote: What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?
The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.
Dudeface wrote: The current design paradigm for GW seems to be if it was intended to give them a 2+, they'd give them a 2+ without a bundle of hoops to jump through
On the other hand, if they intended to not give them a 2+ then they would simply not have that loophole, wouldn't they? Just limit BoC to 3+, end of story. But it is not limited to 3+ it just ceases to exist when another bundle of hoops is jumped through.
Dudeface wrote: What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?
The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.
The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.
unironically get fethed if you ever come up with that argument in a game
Yeah, to me it's clear that you play it as soon as a single unit gets wiped out, hence why you can activate it in any phase.
So lose a unit to melee in your combat phase? You can use it. Lose a unit in your opponent's combat phase? Play it. Opponent just shot your conscripts off the field? Ditto.
On the other hand, if they intended to not give them a 2+ then they would simply not have that loophole, wouldn't they? Just limit BoC to 3+, end of story. But it is not limited to 3+ it just ceases to exist when another bundle of hoops is jumped through.
The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.
I get the sense that you just want something to feel how you want it to feel without actually addressing the consequences of such a change.
Your second point reveals your lack of care in considering sound logic.
Asmodai wrote: 10th must be a really tight rules set if critics have to stretch the meaning of words that far to try to find holes in it.
I think the reading most people would agree on would be that you use it immediately after the units destruction, i.e. at the time you remove the models from the table (picture them going into reserves again instead of into a metaphorical bin), with the most stretched definition you could maybe argue in good faith being that you can bring up the last unit that was destroyed in the current game, which is already something i'd personally not feel like argueing for. A reasonable compromise could be something like checking at the end of the phase or player turn, but then again RAW i'd say it's either immediately after the destruction or never.
Asmodai wrote: 10th must be a really tight rules set if critics have to stretch the meaning of words that far to try to find holes in it.
It's in my top 3 random gripes/wild claims so far.
People have no problem with the word 'just' in other contexts, i.e. 'may' re-rolls, where you have to decide on the spot. I'd argue the appropriate, and only appropriate time to use this stratagem is in the 'clean-up' step of an attack sequence, where you remove the models and other 'whenever a unit is destroyed' things trigger, and once both players agree that this step is over your chance to use it has passed.
Asmodai wrote: 10th must be a really tight rules set if critics have to stretch the meaning of words that far to try to find holes in it.
It's in my top 3 random gripes/wild claims so far.
People have no problem with the word 'just' in other contexts, i.e. 'may' re-rolls, where you have to decide on the spot. I'd argue the appropriate, and only appropriate time to use this stratagem is in the 'clean-up' step of an attack sequence, where you remove the models and other 'whenever a unit is destroyed' things trigger, and once both players agree that this step is over your chance to use it has passed.
Fully agree, I think my top 3 are as follows:
3. "I can revive this unit that was just destroyed 7 games ago"
2. "I know how you make a critical wound, I know what it does but what is a critical wound"
1. "If my 6+" ruin happens to be conveniently at tabletop height at the 6" mark with a unit on top, so it's in a depression in the board, why does it get the benefit for firing at models on the table level with it?"
Dudeface wrote: What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?
The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.
You can absolutely make any argument you like.
Just don't be surprised when others laugh at you, think your being stupid, and if you try it in real life refuse to play you.
Fully agree, I think my top 3 are as follows:
3. "I can revive this unit that was just destroyed 7 games ago"
2. "I know how you make a critical wound, I know what it does but what is a critical wound"
1. "If my 6+" ruin happens to be conveniently at tabletop height at the 6" mark with a unit on top, so it's in a depression in the board, why does it get the benefit for firing at models on the table level with it?"
I can kind of get behind number 2, sometimes one just struggles metaphysically with a concept without a clear reason why
AtoMaki wrote: The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.
Please do not be the reason GW writes everything in stupidly wordy legalese to head off obviously unintended interpretations of simple, plain-English rules. 'Just destroyed' does not, never has, and never will mean 'any model that's ever been destroyed any time in the past'.
You can activate the strat as soon as a unit is destroyed, regardless of what phase that happens in, and put it in your strategic reserves. If you pass on that opportunity, it's gone. Period. Simple. No ambiguity.
Fully agree, I think my top 3 are as follows:
3. "I can revive this unit that was just destroyed 7 games ago"
2. "I know how you make a critical wound, I know what it does but what is a critical wound"
1. "If my 6+" ruin happens to be conveniently at tabletop height at the 6" mark with a unit on top, so it's in a depression in the board, why does it get the benefit for firing at models on the table level with it?"
I can kind of get behind number 2, sometimes one just struggles metaphysically with a concept without a clear reason why
I was very close to having "It's not hard to write rules, you just think of the whole game at once. You'll see the 3+ cover cap is stupid once you think about other profiles and weapons outside of marines" - in the context of the mathematical 100% increase in saves it allows marines.
DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad. Nice of them to preview the KoS though, I have one sitting on my desk while I decide what weapons to give it.
Valkyrie wrote: DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad.
Very good. Daemonic saves were spaghetti code for countering counters that had gotten out of hand. They just also have to yank out the hard counters they stupidly wrote into 9th, long after rerollable 3++ was already gone (and what they were likely written to deal with).
Valkyrie wrote: DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad.
Very good. Daemonic saves were spaghetti code for countering counters that had gotten out of hand. They just also have to yank out the hard counters they stupidly wrote into 9th, long after rerollable 3++ was already gone (and what they were likely written to deal with).
Bodes well for that when Be'Lakor lost his ignore invuln.
Valkyrie wrote: DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad.
Very good. Daemonic saves were spaghetti code for countering counters that had gotten out of hand. They just also have to yank out the hard counters they stupidly wrote into 9th, long after rerollable 3++ was already gone (and what they were likely written to deal with).
On the other hand, they fumbled using the opportunity to giving the Invulnerable save a keyword like [Psychic] and letting select stuff ignore that. Ah well, there's always another edition for them to get it right, for now the solution is at least as uncomplicated as it can be. And probably easier to balance, otherwise you'd run into weird dynamics with e.g. Grey Knights again.
Who knows, GK might get an army rule that they reduce invulnerable saves our something. Very effective against daemons but doesn't mean that they only work against daemons.
This is obviously just off the top of my head, but there's ways of balancing invuln saves.
Afrodactyl wrote: Who knows, GK might get an army rule that they reduce invulnerable saves our something. Very effective against daemons but doesn't mean that they only work against daemons.
This is obviously just off the top of my head, but there's ways of balancing invuln saves.
dear god, please don't add army-hate rules, nothing worse than that IMO
Valkyrie wrote: DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad.
Very good. Daemonic saves were spaghetti code for countering counters that had gotten out of hand. They just also have to yank out the hard counters they stupidly wrote into 9th, long after rerollable 3++ was already gone (and what they were likely written to deal with).
On the other hand, they fumbled using the opportunity to giving the Invulnerable save a keyword like [Psychic] and letting select stuff ignore that. Ah well, there's always another edition for them to get it right, for now the solution is at least as uncomplicated as it can be. And probably easier to balance, otherwise you'd run into weird dynamics with e.g. Grey Knights again.
That's... not a missed opportunity. It can sounds good fluffwise, but game-wise, specific weapons or factions ignoring defenses is absolutely wretched. The 'leave that at home unless you know Timmy is fielding X, in which case you just ruin his fun' kind of wretched.
VLadimirHerzog wrote:dear god, please don't add army-hate rules, nothing worse than that IMO
I'm not liking that we're seeing so much model/unit resurrection. I'm getting a real 7th edition Chaos Daemons summoning vibe.
Tyranids, Endless Swarm Necrons, Reanimation Protocols (granted this has always been their thing, but it's different this time around in that it's not akin to save, it just happens, there isn't a trigger) AM, Reinforcements Daemons, Daemonic Manifestation (this one seem the least egregious)
Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.
oni wrote: I'm not liking that we're seeing so much model/unit resurrection. I'm getting a real 7th edition Chaos Daemons summoning vibe.
Tyranids, Endless Swarm
Necrons, Reanimation Protocols (granted this has always been their thing, but it's different this time around in that it's not akin to save, it just happens, there isn't a trigger)
AM, Reinforcements
Daemons, Daemonic Manifestation (this one seem the least egregious)
So far I think it can be ok IF the regen of CP is limited and there is counterplay, which there seems to be. The actual application could wind up being entirely different though. Rezzing sentinels or field guns is kind of scary.
That's... not a missed opportunity. It can sounds good fluffwise, but game-wise, specific weapons or factions ignoring defenses is absolutely wretched. The 'leave that at home unless you know Timmy is fielding X, in which case you just ruin his fun' kind of wretched.
VLadimirHerzog wrote:dear god, please don't add army-hate rules, nothing worse than that IMO
Exactly. Bad game design from top to bottom.
I partially agree, but not fully - imho, 'hate' rules are only fair (or not more unfair than having e.g. anti-tank, anti-infantry etc. specialists) when they
a) are not overly effective against any particular faction
b) everybody has about equal-ish access to it in some way or form
In combination, this leads to the problem that you can't really phase them in with normal codex rotations, as you will have horrible imbalances for years that way, so 'resets' are the only time you can introduce something like that, which is why imho now is a missed opportunity. I see that this is not a uncontested point of view, but we need not discuss it further. I'm fine with leaving stuff like that out, too, it's hard to balance and GW are bad at balancing in general.
Afrodactyl wrote: Who knows, GK might get an army rule that they reduce invulnerable saves our something. Very effective against daemons but doesn't mean that they only work against daemons.
This is obviously just off the top of my head, but there's ways of balancing invuln saves.
dear god, please don't add army-hate rules, nothing worse than that IMO
Tyel wrote:Faction hatred is a bad road to go down.
Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.
I completely agree, and I believe it should always be a "works against pretty much all factions, but works especially well against this one" approach. Singling out daemons would be awful, but reducing invulns across the board is pretty reasonable.
oni wrote:I'm not liking that we're seeing so much model/unit resurrection. I'm getting a real 7th edition Chaos Daemons summoning vibe.
Tyranids, Endless Swarm
Necrons, Reanimation Protocols (granted this has always been their thing, but it's different this time around in that it's not akin to save, it just happens, there isn't a trigger)
AM, Reinforcements
Daemons, Daemonic Manifestation (this one seem the least egregious)
So far they've only given the rule to factions it kind of makes sense on. I can see Orks getting a similar rule, but can't really see anyone else getting it. Maybe chaos cultists having one?
So far they've only given the rule to factions it kind of makes sense on. I can see Orks getting a similar rule, but can't really see anyone else getting it. Maybe chaos cultists having one?
If every schmuck gets it then that's pretty dumb.
Reinforcements/Endless Swarm/ Green Tide whatever is an okay-ish way to make horde armies feel like actual hordes without needing to buy and paint hundreds of chaff models to shovel them on and off the table for hours. I guess they'll restrain it to these armies, and maybe select units from other armies like GSC or CSM, which i think is fine. If it is any good in practice remains to be seen, your returning unit still need a way to get into the fray again, but that may be solved via other unit's skills or by mission objectives.
I partially agree, but not fully - imho, 'hate' rules are only fair (or not more unfair than having e.g. anti-tank, anti-infantry etc. specialists) when they
a) are not overly effective against any particular faction
b) everybody has about equal-ish access to it in some way or form
In combination, this leads to the problem that you can't really phase them in with normal codex rotations, as you will have horrible imbalances for years that way, so 'resets' are the only time you can introduce something like that, which is why imho now is a missed opportunity. I see that this is not a uncontested point of view, but we need not discuss it further. I'm fine with leaving stuff like that out, too, it's hard to balance and GW are bad at balancing in general.
I did not find an edition of Abhore the Witch double dipping a good or fun rule to use. It was an auto take vs GK, and often vs 1ksons. Especialy outside of stuff like events, where people just know who they are going to play against. It took GW an entire 9th edition to just find out that non GK/1ksons could double dip on kill secondaries and AtW. I don't think they lost the mind set with 10th.
Tyel wrote: Faction hatred is a bad road to go down.
Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.
So that would basically act like faction-hate, and would mean that invulns don't actually matter. its the same thing as ignoring them altogether.
wanna know how to counter demons/harlequins? bring high RoF weapons
So far I think it can be ok IF the regen of CP is limited and there is counterplay, which there seems to be. The actual application could wind up being entirely different though. Rezzing sentinels or field guns is kind of scary.
It can become a problem, when Inari suddenly resurect a big unit of bikers. But who knows maybe GK will get to summon their Ghost Terminators and their perpetual Justicar terminator. And it will be making a terminator army fun. One does have to give GW point for noticing, that maybe resurecting a squadron of lemman russes for 2CP isn't the right thing to do. Although who knows maybe 20 regular IG dudes with a command squad and a character attached, will count as a single unit.
IMO resurection should have either stayed a chaff only thing, or be limited to stuff like Celestine and be super rare.
Tyel wrote: Faction hatred is a bad road to go down.
Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.
So that would basically act like faction-hate, and would mean that invulns don't actually matter. its the same thing as ignoring them altogether.
wanna know how to counter demons/harlequins? bring high RoF weapons
Reducing a save by a point is only ignoring them altogether if they only have a negligible save in the first place. To say its specifically faction hate is a bit much. My Orks don't get saves against most weapons, is that faction hate?
If a rule says "reduce invuln saves for daemons and daemons only", then yeah its faction hate. Saying "reduce invuln saves for everyone across the board" then it's just a generic and generally applicable rule.
So that would basically act like faction-hate, and would mean that invulns don't actually matter. its the same thing as ignoring them altogether.
wanna know how to counter demons/harlequins? bring high RoF weapons
That doesn't really work though. Because one were super fast and didn't allow for use range weapons, unless they wanted it, on top of that they were very resilient with their high inv and debuffs to shoting, and demons were codex flamers, shoting or melee didn't work against them.
Maybe me mr Tyel is thinking about large efficient mechanics and not being stricktly anti army X, if they work against either a more broad type of army building. For example very good vs swarms. Although in some cases it is hard to avoid. If a faction is 100% skimmer mounted, an over all efficient army that hard counters skimers, will hard counter that specific army really well.
So far I think it can be ok IF the regen of CP is limited and there is counterplay, which there seems to be. The actual application could wind up being entirely different though. Rezzing sentinels or field guns is kind of scary.
It can become a problem, when Inari suddenly resurect a big unit of bikers. But who knows maybe GK will get to summon their Ghost Terminators and their perpetual Justicar terminator. And it will be making a terminator army fun. One does have to give GW point for noticing, that maybe resurecting a squadron of lemman russes for 2CP isn't the right thing to do. Although who knows maybe 20 regular IG dudes with a command squad and a character attached, will count as a single unit.
IMO resurection should have either stayed a chaff only thing, or be limited to stuff like Celestine and be super rare.
Why do people keep saying tanks can get resurrected?
The article seems to clearly define it. Am I missing something?
What sorts of units have the REGIMENT keyword, you ask? Your core infantry squads, of course, but also the big guns of Heavy Weapons Squads and Field Ordnance Batteries, elites like Tempestus Scions, and even fast-moving Rough Riders and Sentinel teams!
Tyel wrote: Faction hatred is a bad road to go down.
Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.
So that would basically act like faction-hate, and would mean that invulns don't actually matter. its the same thing as ignoring them altogether.
wanna know how to counter demons/harlequins? bring high RoF weapons
Reducing a save by a point is only ignoring them altogether if they only have a negligible save in the first place. To say its specifically faction hate is a bit much. My Orks don't get saves against most weapons, is that faction hate?
If a rule says "reduce invuln saves for daemons and daemons only", then yeah its faction hate. Saying "reduce invuln saves for everyone across the board" then it's just a generic and generally applicable rule.
Its faction hate when it only realistically affects the two factions that don't get regular saves with their invulns.
And even without that argument, i think it's bad design to start modifying an unmodifiable save
I notice the Daemons article states that normally models choose one weapon to make attacks with, unless they have one or more (ex: KoS) marked "Extra Attacks".
Why do people keep saying tanks can get resurrected?
I am giving GW points for not allowing that, because I have a feeling that in the past, someone would have "missed" it. On the other hand I fully expect in the future to get some sort of special abhuman or similar detachment suddenly respawning a throng of ogryns for a week or two.
In general I like what GW is doing in 10th. I think it is, at least initialy and from what we saw better then 9th and I considered 9th much better then 8th. They just kind of a REALLY need to reach pinacles of design with my magic space marines. Because the way demons look like, I am kind of a scared. But who knows how it will work (aside for leakers, GW staff, people working at printing the rules etc), as the proverb says, expect the worse, and you can only be positivily disappointed
Its faction hate when it only realistically affects the two factions that don't get regular saves with their invulns.
And even without that argument, i think it's bad design to start modifying an unmodifiable save
It's not though, there's plenty of units across the various books that have invuln saves. Those units are normally good, and are normally taken as a result. So it's a rule that's generally good across the board, not faction hate.
I will point you back to my "is something with AP faction hate against Orks, who traditionally have low saves?" point. No it isn't. By that stretch, the existence of a -1 to hit from cover for the current edition is faction hate against Orks too.
Also, why is an invuln save unmodifiable? It's an entirely new edition of the game, they can rewrite invuln saves to be whatever they want. There's literally nothing to stop them putting a rule somewhere in a codex that says "this weapon reduces invuln saves by 1".
Also, why is an invuln save unmodifiable? It's an entirely new edition of the game, they can rewrite invuln saves to be whatever they want. There's literally nothing to stop them putting a rule somewhere in a codex that says "this weapon reduces invuln saves by 1".
because thats their sole reason for existing, its litterally the only difference between them and regular saves.
Why do people keep saying tanks can get resurrected?
I am giving GW points for not allowing that, because I have a feeling that in the past, someone would have "missed" it. On the other hand I fully expect in the future to get some sort of special abhuman or similar detachment suddenly respawning a throng of ogryns for a week or two.
In general I like what GW is doing in 10th. I think it is, at least initialy and from what we saw better then 9th and I considered 9th much better then 8th. They just kind of a REALLY need to reach pinacles of design with my magic space marines. Because the way demons look like, I am kind of a scared. But who knows how it will work (aside for leakers, GW staff, people working at printing the rules etc), as the proverb says, expect the worse, and you can only be positivily disappointed
Strategems are detachment-specific, so an Abhuman Detachment wouldn't have access to the respawn strategem from the Combined Regiment Detachment.
Avoiding that sort of interaction is one of the main benefits of making all the strategems and enhancements Detachment-specific.
Not that there won't be inevitable mistakes, but at least that specific problem has been thought through.
Also, why is an invuln save unmodifiable? It's an entirely new edition of the game, they can rewrite invuln saves to be whatever they want. There's literally nothing to stop them putting a rule somewhere in a codex that says "this weapon reduces invuln saves by 1".
because thats their sole reason for existing, its litterally the only difference between them and regular saves.
The difference between them is that you can still make invulnerable saves despite your armour being beaten. Their sole reason for existence is to make a unit tougher by giving it an extra save to fall back on.
If you could direct me to the published information by GW that invulns can never be reduced or negated under any circumstances I'd be happy to be educated on the point.
Also, why is an invuln save unmodifiable? It's an entirely new edition of the game, they can rewrite invuln saves to be whatever they want. There's literally nothing to stop them putting a rule somewhere in a codex that says "this weapon reduces invuln saves by 1".
because thats their sole reason for existing, its litterally the only difference between them and regular saves.
Their sole reason for existing is that they don't get modified by AP.
There's already a mechanic in the game that effectively modifies your invuln: Mortal Wounds. No reason you couldn't also have some weapons or abilities that reduce invulns, rather than eliminating them entirely.
You can absolutely make any argument you like.
Just don't be surprised when others laugh at you, think your being stupid, and if you try it in real life refuse to play you.
So do you want to make that argument?
Sure. The whole point is that it is slowed. I obviously can't do that, but in a better world, I couldn't make that argument et all.
The timing window of the Stratagem is clear, it is defined in the 'When' line: any phase. That's it. That's when I can use it. Not when a unit is destroyed, that's not what it specifies. I can use it in any phase, any time it tickles my fickle, even in a phase where I haven't lost any units. Then I can target a unit that was just destroyed in an unspecified time window. There is no need to get wordy here, this should just look like this:
When: Any phase, when a Regiment unit from your army was just destroyed. (This is how it is supposed to be and what you guys think it is when it isn't)
Target: The unit that was just destroyed. You can use this Stratagem on the unit even though it was just destroyed.
If you have a defined timing window line for your ability then USE IT.
Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.
Karol wrote: Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.
Dudeface wrote: What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?
The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.
You can absolutely make any argument you like.
Just don't be surprised when others laugh at you, think your being stupid, and if you try it in real life refuse to play you.
Karol wrote: Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.
The timing window is already specific, it says "that was just destroyed". As someone else said, it means was the unit's destruction the last thing that happened, yes or no? If yes, respawn. If no, too late.
If I went to the shops three weeks ago, I wouldn't say I was "just there".
I don't understand the leaps of logic you're taking here.
Karol wrote: Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.
Except it says "Just destroyed", not just "destroyed".
As in, very recently destroyed. As in, you play the stratagem right after you lose a unit.
If it simply said destroyed you'd have a point, but it has "Just" as a qualifier.
Karol wrote: Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.
Then why does it not have 'target: any of your units that has been destroyed (this game or whatever)' but specifies an unit that was *just* destroyed? If it wanted you to have a pick among any units that were destroyed during the game, it would probably tell you.
IMHO it is intended here that you need to decide right at that moment, and need to have the CP ready to pay for it - no bringing back units that were blown up in turn 1 at the end of the game, no picking among all destroyed units, and no abuse with double-vox blobs if you don't have the initial CP ready.
Karol wrote: Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.
The timing window is already specific, it says "that was just destroyed".
The timing window only says "Any Phase", that's literally the entire thing. The Target is a unit that was just destroyed. But which one? I can fire off the Stratagem when no unit is lost, or I can use the Strategem later in the same/consequent phase when the unit was destroyed. You can compare the 'When' line in Reinforcements and Armour of Contempt to see the difference: the latter actually specifies the timing window in that line while the former very clearly doesn't.
Another reason the Strategem might affect any unit destroyed during the battle is because if the start-with-0-CP-gain-1-per-turn thing is true then you can't bring back any unit you lose in the first or even the first two turns because you won't have 2 CP to fire off the Strategem exactly when the unit is destroyed. It feels counterintuitive from a game design perspective to deny a recovery mechanic for the time when the player likely suffers the most casualties and thus encourage the opponent to perform an alpha strike.
The timing window only says "Any Phase", that's literally the entire thing. The Target is a unit that was just destroyed. But which one? I can fire off the Stratagem when no unit is lost, or I can use the Strategem later in the same/consequent phase when the unit was destroyed. You can compare the 'When' line in Reinforcements and Armour of Contempt to see the difference: the latter actually specifies the timing window in that line while the former very clearly doesn't.
you can't play a stratagem without a valid target, stop being so stupid
Karol wrote: Well a unit can die in any phase. That is why the "when" is any phase. The rest is not needed, because you are not going to have non regiment IG units in your army getting destroyed, unless we get rules for inquisition forcing itself in to other detachments.
The timing window is already specific, it says "that was just destroyed".
The timing window only says "Any Phase", that's literally the entire thing. The Target is a unit that was just destroyed. But which one? I can fire off the Stratagem when no unit is lost, or I can use the Strategem later in the same/consequent phase when the unit was destroyed. You can compare the 'When' line in Reinforcements and Armour of Contempt to see the difference: the latter actually specifies the timing window in that line while the former very clearly doesn't.
Another reason the Strategem might affect any unit destroyed during the battle is because if the start-with-0-CP-gain-1-per-turn thing is true then you can't bring back any unit you lose in the first or even the first two turns because you won't have 2 CP to fire off the Strategem exactly when the unit is destroyed. It feels counterintuitive from a game design perspective to deny a recovery mechanic for the time when the player likely suffers the most casualties and thus encourage the opponent to perform an alpha strike.
The Target is a unit that was just destroyed.
Please tell me what the word "just" means in the context of time.
Funnily enough, Armour of Contempt also uses the word "just". Would you be okay with me retroactively activating AoC in the fight phase against your shooting attacks? Because it just happened, at least by the logic you are presenting.
The timing window only says "Any Phase", that's literally the entire thing. The Target is a unit that was just destroyed. But which one? I can fire off the Stratagem when no unit is lost, or I can use the Strategem later in the same/consequent phase when the unit was destroyed. You can compare the 'When' line in Reinforcements and Armour of Contempt to see the difference: the latter actually specifies the timing window in that line while the former very clearly doesn't.
you can't play a stratagem without a valid target, stop being so stupid
Hey, a unit destroyed two phases ago was just destroyed too in the battle (or the turn, or the day, or the year, etc.). Again, refer to the Armour of Contempt timing where the actual activation step is clearly specified (then later referenced for choosing a target) and compare it to Reinforcements where no step is specified et all. AFAIK, we also don't know if we can play a Stratagem without a valid target. Kinda like how we don't know if Marines will get that 2+ save in cover or not.
Please tell me what the word "just" means in the context of time.
It is not used in the context of time (unlike in Armour of Contempt) but in the context of choosing a target. What does it mean there? That's my whole problem with it.
Atomaki, by your flag I'm assuming English isn't your first language, and perhaps that's where your confusion is coming from.
In common English usage, is something 'just' happened, it means it happened immediately prior to now. It's clearly referring to something you do in immediate reaction to a unit being destroyed. Not next phase, not next turn, immediately.
It is not used in the context of time (unlike in Armour of Contempt) but in the context of choosing a target. What does it mean there? That's my whole problem with it.
By your reading, can i use the stratagem repeatedly, in different turns or whatever, targetting the same unit that was 'just' removed, and bringing e..g. three units 'back' for one that got destroyed? There's nothing in the stratagem preventing that if 'just' is as meaningless as you stipulate.
pgmason wrote: Atomaki, by your flag I'm assuming English isn't your first language, and perhaps that's where your confusion is coming from.
In common English usage, is something 'just' happened, it means it happened immediately prior to now. It's clearly referring to something you do in immediate reaction to a unit being destroyed. Not next phase, not next turn, immediately.
I thought this too, but then I clarified the timing and it was removed from the quote when they responded.
Atomaki, are you perhaps interpreting "just destroyed" as meaning "only destroyed, and nothing else has happened to it"?
I don't mean to come across as overly hostile about this point, or ignorant of any difficulties with English you may have, so I apologise if that's the way you're reading my messages. I genuinely just (theres that word again) want to get to the bottom of your confusion around the timing.
:EDIT:
Having an absolute meltdown trying to spell words in English while asking whether someone might have difficulties with English as a language. Fairly embarrassing for me
It is not used in the context of time (unlike in Armour of Contempt) but in the context of choosing a target. What does it mean there? That's my whole problem with it.
By your reading, can i use the stratagem repeatedly, in different turns or whatever, targetting the same unit that was 'just' removed, and bringing e..g. three units 'back' for one that got destroyed? There's nothing in the stratagem preventing that if 'just' is as meaningless as you stipulate.
Hey, as far as I'm concerned, you absolutely can. And it would be pretty awesome too: take out one, two other takes its place. That really embraces the spirit of the ability.
It's clearly referring to something you do in immediate reaction to a unit being destroyed.
Then it would refer to that in the When line, like in Armour of Contempt where it refers to the immediate reaction to an enemy unit targeting one of yours in the When line. If GW really intended this to work in reaction of a unit being destroyed then they would include it in the When line, like in the case of AoC.
Atomaki, are you perhaps interpreting "just destroyed" as meaning "only destroyed, and nothing else has happened to it"?
My problem is with how the Stratagem is structured, not its grammar. As I said earlier, the trigger of the unit getting just destroyed should be in the When line, because in Target it is in the wrong context. The timing window and the targeting criteria are clearly separated and the former is very clearly specified (Any Phase) with no ado (unlike in AoC where it goes on to further specify the timing) while the former apparently also includes a timing window requirement despite it being a targeting criteria field and another ability of the same type making a proper distinction of the two? Something is amiss here.
AtoMaki is not arguing in good faith, theirs no point carrying on. they are not confused, they knows damm well thats not what it says, they just deliberately taking a pedantic RAW interpretation to trash the rules writing. Its would never stand in any actual, real world game, and any TO would just tell him "yeah, nah" and walk off.
That said, i dont think AtoMaki would actually try this in an actual game, they are just using it as an example of "bad rules writing" form GW.
JNAProductions wrote: AtoMaki, do you intend to play it this way?
Or are you just poking fun at GW's imperfect writing?
I actually like it much better as an undefined ability. There is quite a lot of depth for deciding when I want to bring back a lost unit and I can make risky moves in the first and second turns knowing that I have a decent safety net in case one of my key units take a nap. I can react to a changing battlefield by bringing back a fast unit OR a tough unit and keep the enemy guessing what will come back and when. That's pretty friggin' awesome if you ask me.
But otherwise, my main issue is with the writing. Especially since AoC got it right, so I have no idea why Reinforcements didn't. Other than it actually working indefinitely.
Exalted
