Tyel wrote:
Famous last words, but I'll be surprised if Guardians are BS4+ etc unless - like the other supposedly nerfed factions - they have easy access to +1 to hit bringing them back to a 3+ built in.

I would not be shocked if some/all Warlocks have Guide as a +1 To Hit buff

Assuming the shuriken cannon we saw earlier was the reaper exarch, it was bs3+ so I doubt they'll have the guardians at the same bs.

I swear if the exarchs disappear into the squad as a generic squad leader like all the sergeants have, the Eldar will be dead to me.

We finally got 3w exarchs with powers again, so if they disappear I'm done

 Hellebore wrote:
Assuming the shuriken cannon we saw earlier was the reaper exarch, it was bs3+ so I doubt they'll have the guardians at the same bs.

I swear if the exarchs disappear into the squad as a generic squad leader like all the sergeants have, the Eldar will be dead to me.

We finally got 3w exarchs with powers again, so if they disappear I'm done

The new joining units mechanic is so perfect for exarchs that I think it's going to be okay. I think they'll be characters who CAN be assigned, but don't have to be.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Assuming the shuriken cannon we saw earlier was the reaper exarch, it was bs3+ so I doubt they'll have the guardians at the same bs.

I swear if the exarchs disappear into the squad as a generic squad leader like all the sergeants have, the Eldar will be dead to me.

We finally got 3w exarchs with powers again, so if they disappear I'm done

The new joining units mechanic is so perfect for exarchs that I think it's going to be okay. I think they'll be characters who CAN be assigned, but don't have to be.

Character that can only join their own aspect units (and possibly a Court of the Young King) are trivially easy to do with the new 'list' approach, i can see that happening.

 Dysartes wrote:
We're talking probably around a month until the pre-order window starts, and then another couple of weeks until release - do you really not have the patience to wait that long?

I was being silly, but nope!

So I just looked at the FW site because the impending Eldar preview got me curious about 40k again. It looks like Shadow Spectre Exarchs and Irillyth are completely gone. I’m guessing this is a sign of the end for them. Does anyone have any rumors or info confirming or denying this?

 mokoshkana wrote:
So I just looked at the FW site because the impending Eldar preview got me curious about 40k again. It looks like Shadow Spectre Exarchs and Irillyth are completely gone. I’m guessing this is a sign of the end for them. Does anyone have any rumors or info confirming or denying this?

Neither of those are, as of yet, in legends. That's all we know for now.

 mokoshkana wrote:
So I just looked at the FW site because the impending Eldar preview got me curious about 40k again. It looks like Shadow Spectre Exarchs and Irillyth are completely gone. I’m guessing this is a sign of the end for them. Does anyone have any rumors or info confirming or denying this?

It's not uncommon for xenos options to just disappear for good from FW and then get axed without legends in the next FW book.

I know I might sound like a broken record by now, but I'd avoid buying FW models unless you are looking for a display piece and don't care whether it has rules.

40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

 Jidmah wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
So I just looked at the FW site because the impending Eldar preview got me curious about 40k again. It looks like Shadow Spectre Exarchs and Irillyth are completely gone. I’m guessing this is a sign of the end for them. Does anyone have any rumors or info confirming or denying this?

It's not uncommon for xenos options to just disappear for good from FW and then get axed without legends in the next FW book.

I know I might sound like a broken record by now, but I'd avoid buying FW models unless you are looking for a display piece and don't care whether it has rules.

40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

A sad analysis, but probably correct in the medium term. Depending on whatever comes around for The Old World et al., Forgeworld is in the process of being rebranded as 'Specialist whatever' and has been for some years, and at the moment it's mostly Heresy Central anyway. We talked about the last non-HH-compatible 40k model a couple of months ago, and came to the realization that this was the Astreus tank for Primaris Marines, which got released half a decade ago. 40k Forgeworld is dead already, they're just selling stuff until the moulds break.

 Jidmah wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
So I just looked at the FW site because the impending Eldar preview got me curious about 40k again. It looks like Shadow Spectre Exarchs and Irillyth are completely gone. I’m guessing this is a sign of the end for them. Does anyone have any rumors or info confirming or denying this?

It's not uncommon for xenos options to just disappear for good from FW and then get axed without legends in the next FW book.

I know I might sound like a broken record by now, but I'd avoid buying FW models unless you are looking for a display piece and don't care whether it has rules.

40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

I actually have a nicely painted squad of 10 plus an exarch and Irillyth. I was hoping they’d be playable, but I’m guess that is looking less likely. Now I have to figure out when to the best time to sell them is going to be.

 mokoshkana wrote:
I actually have a nicely painted squad of 10 plus an exarch and Irillyth. I was hoping they’d be playable, but I’m guess that is looking less likely. Now I have to figure out when to the best time to sell them is going to be.

They'll be collectibles if they go out of print, so I wouldn't necessarily rush out to sell them. Take my advice with a grain of salt though since I wouldn't sell my stuff anyway.

Anyway - we'll know before the end of June most likely.

 mokoshkana wrote:
I actually have a nicely painted squad of 10 plus an exarch and Irillyth. I was hoping they’d be playable, but I’m guess that is looking less likely. Now I have to figure out when to the best time to sell them is going to be.

You won't be getting more pretty warp spiders any time soon

Why not buy them from the Russians? They have really nice new warp spiders. Same with scorpions and other aspects.

Karol wrote:
Why not buy them from the Russians? They have really nice new warp spiders. Same with scorpions and other aspects.

As my homeboy Basil put it:



Not everybody is fine with third-party products, or comfortable with ordering them from specific countries for many reasons, the war just being one of them - it has risks (like e.g. being scammed) that many people do not feel comfortable taking.

Wow, these Eldar abilities seem really powerful at first glance. Very thematic for them too. I just hope they are balanced well.

 Jidmah wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
I actually have a nicely painted squad of 10 plus an exarch and Irillyth. I was hoping they’d be playable, but I’m guess that is looking less likely. Now I have to figure out when to the best time to sell them is going to be.

You won't be getting more pretty warp spiders any time soon

You’re probably right, but I’d guess Eldar will get some additional kits given their codex is not being released anytime soon. The warp spider autarch could be a positive sign of the future. Or we could continue to languish in our fine cast world…

Seems all the people fretting about BS4+ and Sv5+ Guardians were wrong.

Interesting that their heavy weapons aren't.

Put away your gloom and Doom. The Aeldari are doing just fine. You might even want to bring Guardians.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/16/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-aeldari/

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems all the people fretting about BS4+ and Sv5+ Guardians were wrong.

Interesting that their heavy weapons aren't.

I'm quite surprised that they didn't lose their armour.

I imagine the idea of not having heavy is to encourage moving around, keep the unit mobile.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems all the people fretting about BS4+ and Sv5+ Guardians were wrong.

Interesting that their heavy weapons aren't.

Its the grav platform and the design philosophy the eldar units are supposed to be on the move.
The advantage to 'heavy' as a keyword is you can just take it off without screwing things up (or writing rules as to why x,y,z unit types don't care)

The disadvantage is that there isn't always an explanation for why things are different.

On the other hand, [Assault] on the catapults still causes a mismatch. The platforms can't fire at all when the unit advances.


I'm more worried about the disparity between the 'rerolls' factions and 'no rerolls' factions. That's a pretty harsh 'haves & have nots' disconnect in a dice game.

 Hellebore wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems all the people fretting about BS4+ and Sv5+ Guardians were wrong.

Interesting that their heavy weapons aren't.

I'm quite surprised that they didn't lose their armour.

I imagine the idea of not having heavy is to encourage moving around, keep the unit mobile.

It also effectively gives them a fixed 3+ to hit. Ad Mech have a detachment ability that makes all their weapons Heavy, meaning under the right circumstances they are also 3+ to hit, just as they are now. Overall I think I like this approach better. Eldar being generally slightly better than humans (albeit heavily cybernetically modified ones) feels OK but allowing the modification of the roll in certain situations feeds into the advanced planning and slightly less flexible nature of the Ad Mech.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Assuming the shuriken cannon we saw earlier was the reaper exarch, it was bs3+ so I doubt they'll have the guardians at the same bs.

I swear if the exarchs disappear into the squad as a generic squad leader like all the sergeants have, the Eldar will be dead to me.

We finally got 3w exarchs with powers again, so if they disappear I'm done

The new joining units mechanic is so perfect for exarchs that I think it's going to be okay. I think they'll be characters who CAN be assigned, but don't have to be.

Because it's perfect, I worry that GW won't do it

Nice faction focus today. I think the new Fate Dice at first glance seem a bit weaker than before but a vast improvement in versatility which is its own strength. I also like how they incorporated Guardians into fate dice, I typically run 2-3 squads so this will be quite nice.

Voss wrote:
I'm more worried about the disparity between the 'rerolls' factions and 'no rerolls' factions. That's a pretty harsh 'haves & have nots' disconnect in a dice game.

I would prefer to see elite armies have more widespread access to re-rolls compared to just making them stronger and tougher, or letting them ignore core rules. It's a thematically appropriate buff that can still be balanced appropriately.

Slipspace wrote:

It also effectively gives them a fixed 3+ to hit. Ad Mech have a detachment ability that makes all their weapons Heavy, meaning under the right circumstances they are also 3+ to hit, just as they are now.

But they aren't like that now?

Skitarii are currently a 3+, with a +1 to BS and -1 WS when Protector Imperative was activated.
Doctrina Imperatives(the Detachment Ability you're referring to) is likely still a Skitarii affecting ability, not an AdMech one. Given that it is not present on Cawl's datasheet while Canticles of the Omnissiah is(and in a far, far nicer setup I'll grant!), I think it safe to assume that it will not be present on Kastelan Robots and Servitors...meaning that the Skitarii now have to be babysat by a Techpriest with Invocation of Machine Spirits for a reroll 1 and locked in your DZ with Protector Imperatives active.

Overall I think I like this approach better. Eldar being generally slightly better than humans (albeit heavily cybernetically modified ones) feels OK but allowing the modification of the roll in certain situations feeds into the advanced planning and slightly less flexible nature of the Ad Mech.

I don't. I won't say the army is dead, but I'm a bit disheartened from their decision to showcase just the Vanguard and how lackluster that unit is. It never has been an impressive unit to begin with, and seeing a notable difference between the Vanguard and Rangers would have alleviated my concerns.

Because frankly? Seeing the Arquebus still on Vanguard and the Eradication Ray at a 4+ does not alleviate any of my concerns about the design team and their direction with the Skitarii portion of the army. They seem intent to make them just "robed guard".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems all the people fretting about BS4+ and Sv5+ Guardians were wrong.

Interesting that their heavy weapons aren't.

Superior technology. Don't need to stay stationary to shoot accurately.

 catbarf wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm more worried about the disparity between the 'rerolls' factions and 'no rerolls' factions. That's a pretty harsh 'haves & have nots' disconnect in a dice game.

I would prefer to see elite armies have more widespread access to re-rolls compared to just making them stronger and tougher, or letting them ignore core rules. It's a thematically appropriate buff that can still be balanced appropriately.

I'm not sure it can, honestly. That's a pretty deep dive into statistics for GW, and that's before you get into manipulated pre-re-rolls.

If factions A, B and C (maybe D & E, its unclear where this will stop) can manipulate the dice game and the rest of the factions can't, that's a huge balancing act on top of just the base statistics of hit/wound/save. And the various +/- modifiers that are already cropping up as well. This isn't, traditionally, GW's strong suit.

Do you think we can guess at the new Guard missile launcher stats, based on the Eldar one? Currently, the only difference is a point of frag ap. I was hoping the scatter laser would help with guessing the new multilaser stats, but looking at this I would guess the multilaser wouldn't change.

ps. I haven't been reading every focus, in case there are some better hints for Guard weapons.

 Trickstick wrote:
Do you think we can guess at the new Guard missile launcher stats, based on the Eldar one? Currently, the only difference is a point of frag ap. I was hoping the scatter laser would help with guessing the new multilaser stats, but looking at this I would guess the multilaser wouldn't change.

ps. I haven't been reading every focus, in case there are some better hints for Guard weapons.

Guard will be the same as the marine ML on the terminator cyclone ( but half shots ). So basically Eldar have extra AP on "frag" and extra S on "krak".

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Guard will be the same as the marine ML on the terminator cyclone ( but half shots ). So basically Eldar have extra AP on "frag" and extra S on "krak".

If that is the case, the autocannon is looking good over the missile. 2 attacks, you lose 1 ap, and you have a fixed 3 damage over d6. I guess it'll come down to cost.

Anyway in the spirit of Meatloaf, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

DG tomorrow. So Plague Marines, Mortarion and, uh, Plagueburst Mortar? Not really showing us any special rules given we've had the Exorcist but not sure what else to pick in terms of "big guns".

After the Farseer, I guess it could be a smaller character, but not really sure who leaps out. A biologus putrifier perhaps? With a section on how grenades work in the new edition?

Blight grenades would be a nice thing to put in a plague marine focus.

 Jidmah wrote:


40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

Not completely, but it will cut back. 40K FW is still the "test bed" to see if something is worth moving to 40K "Proper".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Strands of Fate isn't bad - Start with 18 - potentially 14-16 if you get bad luck or you're a gambler, pick up 2-3+ per command phase, turn the junky ones into 6's slowly. Its got some front loading ability and a steady but somewhat slow income - easy to see a path blowing through the 6's early on for big game hunting, regenerate them with your Guardians on objectives, and let the Farseer trickle the low results into 6's over time.

Edit To Add: One potential problem I see already though is the Guilliman Parkling Lot they hated could easily return with Eldrad this time and a handful of Fireprisms etc.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

Not completely, but it will cut back. 40K FW is still the "test bed" to see if something is worth moving to 40K "Proper".

Care to elaborate please? I'm not sure what metric you might use but I'm sure sales of the HH dread etc have been enough to warrant 40k rules, but I doubt they'll end up in "proper" 40k.

Breton wrote:
The Strands of Fate isn't bad - Start with 18 - potentially 14-16 if you get bad luck or you're a gambler, pick up 2-3+ per command phase, turn the junky ones into 6's slowly. Its got some front loading ability and a steady but somewhat slow income - easy to see a path blowing through the 6's early on for big game hunting, regenerate them with your Guardians on objectives, and let the Farseer trickle the low results into 6's over time.

I think I'm missing something here - where do you get "start with 18" from?

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
The Strands of Fate isn't bad - Start with 18 - potentially 14-16 if you get bad luck or you're a gambler, pick up 2-3+ per command phase, turn the junky ones into 6's slowly. Its got some front loading ability and a steady but somewhat slow income - easy to see a path blowing through the 6's early on for big game hunting, regenerate them with your Guardians on objectives, and let the Farseer trickle the low results into 6's over time.

I think I'm missing something here - where do you get "start with 18" from?

You start with 12 as far as we know. Depending on how many Guardians you have and how objectives are set up in the mission, you might get additional dice at the end of your first Command phase, but that is not guaranteed.

I guess the Guardian sheet shows us why the invulnerable save is on the right.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

Not completely, but it will cut back. 40K FW is still the "test bed" to see if something is worth moving to 40K "Proper".

Care to elaborate please? I'm not sure what metric you might use but I'm sure sales of the HH dread etc have been enough to warrant 40k rules, but I doubt they'll end up in "proper" 40k.

The "HH dreads" (and most other HH vehicles) have been part of "proper 40k" since late 6th/early 7th. What exactly are you on about?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems all the people fretting about BS4+ and Sv5+ Guardians were wrong.

Interesting that their heavy weapons aren't.

That's good. Eldar troops should be pretty high quality. Even the Guardians.

As for the "Heavy" weapons, the anti Grav weapons platforms have been move-and-fire for most if not all of their existence. It makes sense.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

Not completely, but it will cut back. 40K FW is still the "test bed" to see if something is worth moving to 40K "Proper".

Care to elaborate please? I'm not sure what metric you might use but I'm sure sales of the HH dread etc have been enough to warrant 40k rules, but I doubt they'll end up in "proper" 40k.

The "HH dreads" (and most other HH vehicles) have been part of "proper 40k" since late 6th/early 7th. What exactly are you on about?

Only recently has plastic models been coming out.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

Not completely, but it will cut back. 40K FW is still the "test bed" to see if something is worth moving to 40K "Proper".

Care to elaborate please? I'm not sure what metric you might use but I'm sure sales of the HH dread etc have been enough to warrant 40k rules, but I doubt they'll end up in "proper" 40k.

The "HH dreads" (and most other HH vehicles) have been part of "proper 40k" since late 6th/early 7th. What exactly are you on about?

Only recently has plastic models been coming out.

And???

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

Not completely, but it will cut back. 40K FW is still the "test bed" to see if something is worth moving to 40K "Proper".

Care to elaborate please? I'm not sure what metric you might use but I'm sure sales of the HH dread etc have been enough to warrant 40k rules, but I doubt they'll end up in "proper" 40k.

The "HH dreads" (and most other HH vehicles) have been part of "proper 40k" since late 6th/early 7th. What exactly are you on about?

Only recently has plastic models been coming out.

And???

I took Brentons comment to mean that if a FW model sold well, it got the plastic treatment and added to a codex. Except that clearly doesn't seem to stand.

Daring to hope, I would love to see exarchs become characters.

I'm unsure if they would be listed under their aspect unit or as a separate data card.

They could say that they are leaders that start in their aspect and only leave when the unit is dead.

I hope for something like this:

M7" t3 w3 sv3+ ld6+ os 0 (they are killers not holders)

Their rules would only aid their aspect.

So If we go with Scorpions I'd hope for something like:


Aspect M7" t3 w1 sv3+ ld6+ os1
Exarch m7' t3 w3 sv3+ ld6+ os0

Shuriken pistol
Scorpion chain blade 3+ A4 s5 ap-1 D1
Mandi blasters (extra attacks, devastating wounds) 3+ a1 s5 ap-1 D1

Scorpion claw 3+ A4 s8 ap-2 d2
Biting blade 3+ a5 s7 ap-1 d1
Chain sabres (twin linked) 3+ a6 s5 ap-1 d1

Rules
Strands of fate, deep strike

Exarch (leader) the exarch will only lead units with the same aspect keyword

Sustained assault, the exarch and their unit gain sustained hits (1)

Interesting choice having Mandiblasters as an extra weapon instead of an ability, looks good.

 Hellebore wrote:
Scorpion claw 3+ A4 s8 ap-2 d2
Biting blade 3+ a5 s7 ap-1 d1
Chain sabres (twin linked) 3+ a6 s5 ap-1 d1

Are these options meant to be balanced against one another?

Trickstick wrote:Blight grenades would be a nice thing to put in a plague marine focus.

Grenades as a whole seem to be going into a universal stratagem. They may be a unique stratagem for their basic detachment around them though or a unique ability based around the Biologus Putrifier.

I am interested in the DG article as it is an army that I know how they work so I will be able to write some thoughts tomorrow.

My theory is that their army special rule is going to be based around their Contagions, perhaps they will have multiple that you can choose from at the start of the game, and the detachment rule will be similar to Inexorable advance, allowing units to count as stationary and Infantry to go at full speed at all times.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

Not completely, but it will cut back. 40K FW is still the "test bed" to see if something is worth moving to 40K "Proper".

Care to elaborate please? I'm not sure what metric you might use but I'm sure sales of the HH dread etc have been enough to warrant 40k rules, but I doubt they'll end up in "proper" 40k.

I mean Drop Pods. I mean Contemptor Dreads. I mean Chapter Iconography Shoulderpads, I mean HH/30K itself. Forgeworld is somewhat a testbed for new ideas/models - and the take-off-successful ones have a habit of moving to GW itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
The Strands of Fate isn't bad - Start with 18 - potentially 14-16 if you get bad luck or you're a gambler, pick up 2-3+ per command phase, turn the junky ones into 6's slowly. Its got some front loading ability and a steady but somewhat slow income - easy to see a path blowing through the 6's early on for big game hunting, regenerate them with your Guardians on objectives, and let the Farseer trickle the low results into 6's over time.

I think I'm missing something here - where do you get "start with 18" from?

You start with 12 as far as we know. Depending on how many Guardians you have and how objectives are set up in the mission, you might get additional dice at the end of your first Command phase, but that is not guaranteed.

That's correct, I just fumblefingered that one, thinking it through faster than I typed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

I took Brentons comment to mean that if a FW model sold well, it got the plastic treatment and added to a codex. Except that clearly doesn't seem to stand.

Not necessarily "sells well" alone. Drop Pods made the leap, but the Termite drill did not. Chapter shoulderpads made the leap, chapter LandRaider/Rhino doors did not. The Contemptor did, while the Leviathan did not. The Leviathan probably encroached too much on the Redemptor Chassis/plans, the Termite on the Pods.

They sell two different plastic Leviathan kits.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They sell two different plastic Leviathan kits.

I think the criteria for "proper 40k" here is making it into the mainstream codex, which I doubt leviathans will even with the plastic kits. If they continue to get imperial armour rules then they'll continue to be an afterthought.

Ending the great debate: as expected, a critical wound is just a term for "always wounds on a X" and does nothing else on its own:

Dudeface wrote:
I think the criteria for "proper 40k" here is making it into the mainstream codex, which I doubt leviathans will even with the plastic kits. If they continue to get imperial armour rules then they'll continue to be an afterthought.

Ah, ok, I understand. Thanks.

And ooh! Leaks. Cool.

 Hellebore wrote:
They could say that they are leaders that start in their aspect and only leave when the unit is dead.

That's just how the regular "leader" rule works as far as we know. No leaving or joining units over the course of a game.

I'm reading too much into the eldar preview, but the preview makes my space elves feel very late 8th edition in a bad way. Looks like we're swapping out move-shoot-move for a pile of auto-successes and rerolls. Gives me the impression GW wants us to trade blows in a stand-up fight rather than moving around and being tricksy.

I wasn't happy with our move-shoot-move being limited to a stratagem in 8th. Here's hoping there's a detachment for regaining Battle Focus or something.

Other than that, no major complaints. Our various flying units zooming up on top of buildings to gain plunging fire on top of re-rolls to hit and wound with auto-successes for the more critical rolls seems like it will make us hit crazy hard.

It's so nice that after ten editions, so many rules scale so well with game size...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's so nice that after ten editions, so many rules scale so well with game size...

Conversely it's also nice to see them admit you can't balance at 500 and 2000 with the exact same rules.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They sell two different plastic Leviathan kits.

I think the criteria for "proper 40k" here is making it into the mainstream codex, which I doubt leviathans will even with the plastic kits. If they continue to get imperial armour rules then they'll continue to be an afterthought.

Ending the great debate: as expected, a critical wound is just a term for "always wounds on a X" and does nothing else on its own:

Spoiler:

Actually the standard I had in mind when I made up the term is shifting from the Forgeworld webpage to the GW webpage (and branding on the packages etc) Far fewer make that jump I realize - but that was fairly intentional.

And no, your douchebaggery not allowing you to let it go OR be honest about the question raised aside, that doesn't end the debate, because it was never about what it does on its own, but also what else can interact with it which you've been told several times yet refuse to acknowledge.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They sell two different plastic Leviathan kits.

I think the criteria for "proper 40k" here is making it into the mainstream codex, which I doubt leviathans will even with the plastic kits. If they continue to get imperial armour rules then they'll continue to be an afterthought.

Ending the great debate: as expected, a critical wound is just a term for "always wounds on a X" and does nothing else on its own:

Spoiler:

Actually the standard I had in mind when I made up the term is shifting from the Forgeworld webpage to the GW webpage (and branding on the packages etc) Far fewer make that jump I realize - but that was fairly intentional.

And no, your douchebaggery not allowing you to let it go OR be honest about the question raised aside, that doesn't end the debate, because it was never about what it does on its own, but also what else can interact with it which you've been told several times yet refuse to acknowledge.

Of course

Breton wrote:

That still doesn't explain what a Critical Wound is. I mean a Wound, a Critical Wound, a Mortal Wound? A Wound can armor save, a Mortal Wound can't, what happens to a Critical Wound?

But at least now it's in the open, you can lay it to rest surely, or are you wanting a breakdown of every possible interaction?

Yes I am potentially being provocative raising it again, but after 10 pages of putting up with your dishonesty and poor wording, I felt drawing a conclusion to something that plagued this thread is worthwhile. A little humility to all those people you got angry at telling you what it was, as per your question, wouldn't hurt.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Scorpion claw 3+ A4 s8 ap-2 d2
Biting blade 3+ a5 s7 ap-1 d1
Chain sabres (twin linked) 3+ a6 s5 ap-1 d1

Are these options meant to be balanced against one another?

I wasn't really trying to, but are we expecting them to all cost the same and balance in the stats?

The terminator captain had 5 weapon options but they didn't look equal to me.

The differences were

Sword s5 a6
Fist s8 a5
Claw s5 a7 D1 twinlinked

Chain fist a5 3+ anti vehicle
Hammer a5 3+ devestating wounds

I'm not sure if they all balance.

Certainly imo the lightning claws are weakest, losing (compared to sword) damage for 1 extra attack and the off chance you'll roll a 1.

 Hellebore wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Scorpion claw 3+ A4 s8 ap-2 d2
Biting blade 3+ a5 s7 ap-1 d1
Chain sabres (twin linked) 3+ a6 s5 ap-1 d1

Are these options meant to be balanced against one another?

I wasn't really trying to, but are we expecting them to all cost the same and balance in the stats?

The terminator captain had 5 weapon options but they didn't look equal to me.

The differences were

Sword s5 a6
Fist s8 a5
Claw s5 a7 D1 twinlinked

Chain fist a5 3+ anti vehicle
Hammer a5 3+ devestating wounds

I'm not sure if they all balance.

Certainly imo the lightning claws are weakest, losing (compared to sword) damage for 1 extra attack and the off chance you'll roll a 1.

Rerolls on wounds for twin linked don't forget, so that's arguably of some value in a world of higher T.

Critical wounds are wounds that ignore the s vs t interaction, succeeding on a fixed roll.

In normal attacks, that's a 6. Some special rules change it.

Bit it's never been confusing to me. A crit is a successful wound on a fixed number that ignores s vs t.

 Hellebore wrote:
Critical wounds are wounds that ignore the s vs t interaction, succeeding on a fixed roll.

In normal attacks, that's a 6. Some special rules change it.

Bit it's never been confusing to me. A crit is a successful wound on a fixed number that ignores s vs t.

Dear god, please not this again.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Critical wounds are wounds that ignore the s vs t interaction, succeeding on a fixed roll.

In normal attacks, that's a 6. Some special rules change it.

Bit it's never been confusing to me. A crit is a successful wound on a fixed number that ignores s vs t.

Dear god, please not this again.

look on the upside, there is a whole editions worth of time with this debate, especially when GW start issuing books with "critical wounds must be re-rolled v this unit" or other such jibberish to needlessly muddy the water

leopard wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Critical wounds are wounds that ignore the s vs t interaction, succeeding on a fixed roll.

In normal attacks, that's a 6. Some special rules change it.

Bit it's never been confusing to me. A crit is a successful wound on a fixed number that ignores s vs t.

Dear god, please not this again.

look on the upside, there is a whole editions worth of time with this debate, especially when GW start issuing books with "critical wounds must be re-rolled v this unit" or other such jibberish to needlessly muddy the water

It's easily in the top three, together with 'Who gets plunging fire if my gaming table is a Klein bottle' and 'Do you really know that the word just does not include two games ago'

Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

Dudeface wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

In one edition (6th or 7th IIRC) the rules required you to draw LoS from a model's eyes. Cue lots of people pointing out that many, many models don't have eyes and therefore couldn't shoot because they didn't have LoS.

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

In one edition (6th or 7th IIRC) the rules required you to draw LoS from a model's eyes. Cue lots of people pointing out that many, many models don't have eyes and therefore couldn't shoot because they didn't have LoS.

Shame that it didn't lead to e.g. Tyranids with comically Lobster-like eyestalks

Dudeface wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

5th edition true line of sight rules:

Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model...

So if the model doesn't have eyes, you could argue that it couldn't shoot.

 Trickstick wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

5th edition true line of sight rules:

Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model...

So if the model doesn't have eyes, you could argue that it couldn't shoot.

I don't think we ever noticed or paid attention to that in a literal sense, we just applied a little common sense and moved on.

Dudeface wrote:
I don't think we ever noticed or paid attention to that in a literal sense, we just applied a little common sense and moved on.

Oh 100%, but it was fun to laugh at this sort of thing. Or you could get that guy trying it, but then why would you play that person?

A friend of mine added rocks to his bases so his Tyranid monsters could look over smaller fences in 5th edition. There were some hardcore rules lawyers in the tabletop club back then ...

I have vague memories of someone modelling wings shielding their model, as you couldnt draw los to wings and they would block los to the body...

Brickfix wrote:
A friend of mine added rocks to his bases so his Tyranid monsters could look over smaller fences in 5th edition. There were some hardcore rules lawyers in the tabletop club back then ...

I remember seeing a wraithlord converted to be laying down sniper-style to avoid LOS once

Some interesting tidbits from the leak:

- Strategic reseves now 25% of points of army
- Strategic reserves can last until the last turn, destroyed at the end of the battle
- Flying units can charge through terrain and models as if they were not there
- Combat is base to base or within engagement range, and one friendly base behind. Anything behind 2 lines of base-to-base contact cannot fight
- "Scouts" can move X" at the start of the battle. IF in a transport, the transport makes that move.
- Heroic intervention now a 2CP stratagem, counts as a 6" charge
- Shooting: Monsters and vehicles can be shot at even if they are within engagement range of friendly unit. The unit in engagement range can still only shoot with pistos.
- Everyone has access to a "Deep Strike in your opponent's movement phase" strat.
- Grenades are now a generic "Roll 6x D6, every 4+ is a MW" strat.
- BGNT now has a -1 to hit on all weapons except Pistols.
- Hazardous weapons just roll one D6 per model, regardless of number of shots fired. Kills a model or does 3MW to Monsters Vehicles and Characters.

 Valkyrie wrote:

- Heroic intervention now a 2CP stratagem, counts as a 6" charge

You have to be with 6", but still have to roll for charge as normal. So you have a chance to fail.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

That still doesn't explain what a Critical Wound is. I mean a Wound, a Critical Wound, a Mortal Wound? A Wound can armor save, a Mortal Wound can't, what happens to a Critical Wound?

But at least now it's in the open, you can lay it to rest surely, or are you wanting a breakdown of every possible interaction?

Yes I am potentially being provocative raising it again, but after 10 pages of putting up with your dishonesty and poor wording, I felt drawing a conclusion to something that plagued this thread is worthwhile. A little humility to all those people you got angry at telling you what it was, as per your question, wouldn't hurt.

No potentially about it you are - and you'd be the one with the dishonesty suggesting one snip covers all the interactions - or that one other cherry picked snip (that ignores the conversations relating to Devastating Wounds, or the fact that Critical Wounds don't become Mortal Wounds "on their own" etc?) is the sum total of what I was asking about and so on. Did you have a bad day today? Your mom yell at you for not cleaning your room or something? Is that why you decided to come out here and troll over something that went away?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Scorpion claw 3+ A4 s8 ap-2 d2
Biting blade 3+ a5 s7 ap-1 d1
Chain sabres (twin linked) 3+ a6 s5 ap-1 d1

Are these options meant to be balanced against one another?

I wasn't really trying to, but are we expecting them to all cost the same and balance in the stats?

The terminator captain had 5 weapon options but they didn't look equal to me.

The differences were

Sword s5 a6
Fist s8 a5
Claw s5 a7 D1 twinlinked

Chain fist a5 3+ anti vehicle
Hammer a5 3+ devestating wounds

I'm not sure if they all balance.

Certainly imo the lightning claws are weakest, losing (compared to sword) damage for 1 extra attack and the off chance you'll roll a 1.

I suspect they are - that last points update sure felt like a trial balloon for that. And yeah, I also suspect that Twin Linking in general is going to be "over-costed" so to speak, and especially so on the Lightning Claws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Some interesting tidbits from the leak:

- Strategic reseves now 25% of points of army
- Strategic reserves can last until the last turn, destroyed at the end of the battle

You mean you can bring them in up to the last turn, and destroyed if you dont? At first I read that as Any Strategic Reserves count as destroyed after the end of the battle which was weird.

- Flying units can charge through terrain and models as if they were not there

This has been pretty normal?

- Combat is base to base or within engagement range, and one friendly base behind. Anything behind 2 lines of base-to-base contact cannot fight

Sounds like they're trying to bring back "ranking up" from Fantasy.

- "Scouts" can move X" at the start of the battle. IF in a transport, the transport makes that move.
- Heroic intervention now a 2CP stratagem, counts as a 6" charge
- Shooting: Monsters and vehicles can be shot at even if they are within engagement range of friendly unit. The unit in engagement range can still only shoot with pistos.
- Everyone has access to a "Deep Strike in your opponent's movement phase" strat.

Oh. Yeah that one is definitely interesting.

- Grenades are now a generic "Roll 6x D6, every 4+ is a MW" strat.
- BGNT now has a -1 to hit on all weapons except Pistols.
- Hazardous weapons just roll one D6 per model, regardless of number of shots fired. Kills a model or does 3MW to Monsters Vehicles and Characters.

Sounds like they're still trying to rework Gets Hot so you can't reroll the one's with a leader. I wonder if there will be strats etc to reroll (or Sub for the Sisters/etc) the single dice.

- Hazardous weapons just roll one D6 per model, regardless of number of shots fired. Kills a model or does 3MW to Monsters Vehicles and Characters.

Sounds like they're still trying to rework Gets Hot so you can't reroll the one's with a leader. I wonder if there will be strats etc to reroll (or Sub for the Sisters/etc) the single dice.

Command Re-roll specifically mentions Hazardous tests. Might already be implied but it's worth mentioning that the Hazardous test is separate from your Hit rolls, so 1's to hit don't automatically proc it.

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

Not completely, but it will cut back. 40K FW is still the "test bed" to see if something is worth moving to 40K "Proper".

Care to elaborate please? I'm not sure what metric you might use but I'm sure sales of the HH dread etc have been enough to warrant 40k rules, but I doubt they'll end up in "proper" 40k.

The "HH dreads" (and most other HH vehicles) have been part of "proper 40k" since late 6th/early 7th. What exactly are you on about?

Only recently has plastic models been coming out.

And???

Guess you missed his point of fw units moving to gw...

Fw resin. Then gw plastic. That's the point. Good job at missing such a trivial example.

Has there been plastic leviathan in 6/7 edition?

There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

I agree, I don't understand why characters, monsters, and vehicles have to have their plasma weapons be so dangerous to themselves. I wonder how this will affect Kharn.

Could'a just made it D3 Mortal Wounds to the wielder of the weapon. Simple, but not simplistic!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

Because the rules don't want to force situations that could leave multiple injured models in one unit or spill over into other models. For example, if a failure always did three MW's, your guardsmen with plasmaguns would explode and kill half of their teammates with them. It's also been this way from 8th onwards, so nothing particularly new in it except for the separation from To Hit rolls.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

The only 4-wound unit I can think of that has Hazardous weapons at the moment would be Crisis Suits. The problem with using Mortal Wounds on non-single model units is the wounds would carry over, which is not a desirable outcome. I don't really see a problem with treating characters monsters and vehicles differently, assuming the costs are appropriate for the Hazardous weapons. It also seems likely most Hazardous weapons will have a safer profile they can use if you're worried about the consequences.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

The only 4-wound unit I can think of that has Hazardous weapons at the moment would be Crisis Suits. The problem with using Mortal Wounds on non-single model units is the wounds would carry over, which is not a desirable outcome. I don't really see a problem with treating characters monsters and vehicles differently, assuming the costs are appropriate for the Hazardous weapons. It also seems likely most Hazardous weapons will have a safer profile they can use if you're worried about the consequences.

I don't disagree with their choice but it's not like H.B.M.C. doesn't have a point either here, someone's plasma pistol blowing up in their hands or a psychic backlash has good odds of hitting someone at their elbow/shoulder. The only instance it might cause problems to use MW is it you have something like a tac squad with multiple minis both armed with the plasma and those without, if the plasma gunner blows up and does 3 MW, the 3rd might be placed onto a rando bolter guy, then if the plasma cannon overheats and does 1 MW the rules force you to kill the bolter guy. Same would apply if the first weapon overheats and a guy already has 1 wound missing.

So having written it out, yes, they made the better choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

No potentially about it you are - and you'd be the one with the dishonesty suggesting one snip covers all the interactions - or that one other cherry picked snip (that ignores the conversations relating to Devastating Wounds, or the fact that Critical Wounds don't become Mortal Wounds "on their own" etc?) is the sum total of what I was asking about and so on. Did you have a bad day today? Your mom yell at you for not cleaning your room or something? Is that why you decided to come out here and troll over something that went away?

Not at all, I felt that given the debate lasted over 10 pages because we didn't have the full rules, providing the full rules was a worthy time to resurface it. Your original post was that the first thing you wanted to read is the section for critical wounds once you had the core rules to answer what they were/did - you're welcome.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

The only 4-wound unit I can think of that has Hazardous weapons at the moment would be Crisis Suits. The problem with using Mortal Wounds on non-single model units is the wounds would carry over, which is not a desirable outcome. I don't really see a problem with treating characters monsters and vehicles differently, assuming the costs are appropriate for the Hazardous weapons. It also seems likely most Hazardous weapons will have a safer profile they can use if you're worried about the consequences.

Many offensive psychic powers seem to have a focused mode that has Hazardous now, as a replacement for perils, so it's likely to be a bit more widespread this edition.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Some interesting tidbits from the leak:

- Strategic reseves now 25% of points of army

The way this is set out in the rules seems to confirm that battle sizes are fixed – apparently 1500 points worth of models is wrongfun?

 Valkyrie wrote:

- Heroic intervention now a 2CP stratagem, counts as a 6" charge

This is not limited to CHARACTERS, any unit in range is viable. Great for setting up protector units. Charging stuff next to Dreadnoughts or Daemon Engines is not advised


Also: Tank Shock!
If things like Dreadnoughts/the Defiler still have their juicy S14 fists, rolling 16 dice to fish for MWs on 5+ before you proceed to trample what's left of the enemy sounds like a fun way to burn a CP.

Snugiraffe wrote:
The way this is set out in the rules seems to confirm that battle sizes are fixed – apparently 1500 points worth of models is wrongfun?

I know I keep using this word, but I really do wish they'd scale these rules a bit more rather than these fixed amounts.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Snugiraffe wrote:
The way this is set out in the rules seems to confirm that battle sizes are fixed – apparently 1500 points worth of models is wrongfun?

I know I keep using this word, but I really do wish they'd scale these rules a bit more rather than these fixed amounts.

Might be my experience of working with humans and organisation coming through here, but I wouldn't trust people to just make their own way. You'd end up with people claiming they don't know what to do and doing nothing, the people who pick obscure values and publicly complain something doesn't work and events that all bicker over size etc.

I agree in principle, but I don't trust humans enough, especially not 40k players.

Snugiraffe wrote:


Also: Tank Shock!
If things like Dreadnoughts/the Defiler still have their juicy S14 fists, rolling 16 dice to fish for MWs on 5+ before you proceed to trample what's left of the enemy sounds like a fun way to burn a CP.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what the Goliath Rockgrinder gets for it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

I'd guess it's a combination of left-overs and character vs rank and file.

Assuming this new Army Building system lasts for a while - and that's a big if - we'll probably have remnants of the previous system showing up for a few editions. Gets Hot/Hazardous being just one of them.

In addition there's a much bigger let-down when your leader-one-of-a-kind self immolates than if one of your Super Trooper does it when you have 3 units of 5. Call it plot armor.

Re: hazardous
Its also worth noting that you can feel no pain your way out of mortal wounds, but not being removed.

So troopers always die, characters & etc can potentially escape unscathed.

---
Also it grinds my gears that weapon abilities are organized by how they fit on the page rather than alphabetical order.

Layout does not trump proper organization!

Voss wrote:

Also it grinds my gears that weapon abilities are organized by how they fit on the page rather than alphabetical order.

Layout does not trump proper organization!

Hardly the biggest thing to complain about.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
They could say that they are leaders that start in their aspect and only leave when the unit is dead.

That's just how the regular "leader" rule works as far as we know. No leaving or joining units over the course of a game.

Side note : with no strat to reattach Leaders are super vulnerable to indirect or aircraft once the bodyguards are gone.

 Valkyrie wrote:

Voss wrote:

Also it grinds my gears that weapon abilities are organized by how they fit on the page rather than alphabetical order.

Layout does not trump proper organization!

Hardly the biggest thing to complain about.

I think rules layout is a valid thing to complain about. It might not be too hard to parse the weapon abilities section, but if the layout of the whole book is more concerned with text-fitting and presentation than actual usability, that could be an issue.

 Hellebore wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Scorpion claw 3+ A4 s8 ap-2 d2
Biting blade 3+ a5 s7 ap-1 d1
Chain sabres (twin linked) 3+ a6 s5 ap-1 d1

Are these options meant to be balanced against one another?

I wasn't really trying to, but are we expecting them to all cost the same and balance in the stats?

The terminator captain had 5 weapon options but they didn't look equal to me.

The differences were

Sword s5 a6
Fist s8 a5
Claw s5 a7 D1 twinlinked

Chain fist a5 3+ anti vehicle
Hammer a5 3+ devestating wounds

I'm not sure if they all balance.

Certainly imo the lightning claws are weakest, losing (compared to sword) damage for 1 extra attack and the off chance you'll roll a 1.

Here you go:

The Leader rule is... interesting. We saw part of it already (attaching in the pre-battle steps).

But the leader is completely ignored by attacks (unless [Precision comes up]), so a different toughness doesn't matter- you always use the unit's toughness

However, the wording implies that once the last bodyguard dies, any remaining attacks are allocated to the leader regardless of any toughness difference.

Also interesting- the 'lieutenants as second leaders' ability is a property of the 'Lt's' datacard. By the leader rule, only one character can be assigned to a unit.

Voss wrote:
Also interesting- the 'lieutenants as second leaders' ability is a property of the 'Lt's' datacard. By the leader rule, only one character can be assigned to a unit.

Yea they called out that Captains can break that dynamic. I imagine it will be fairly rare.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Scorpion claw 3+ A4 s8 ap-2 d2
Biting blade 3+ a5 s7 ap-1 d1
Chain sabres (twin linked) 3+ a6 s5 ap-1 d1

Are these options meant to be balanced against one another?

I wasn't really trying to, but are we expecting them to all cost the same and balance in the stats?

The terminator captain had 5 weapon options but they didn't look equal to me.

The differences were

Sword s5 a6
Fist s8 a5
Claw s5 a7 D1 twinlinked

Chain fist a5 3+ anti vehicle
Hammer a5 3+ devestating wounds

I'm not sure if they all balance.

Certainly imo the lightning claws are weakest, losing (compared to sword) damage for 1 extra attack and the off chance you'll roll a 1.

Here you go:

That'll depend on target as well though I assume? I.e. you will kill more 1w models.with the claws than the sword.

Dudeface wrote:
That'll depend on target as well though I assume? I.e. you will kill more 1w models.with the claws than the sword.

It assumes W1/2/3 for the GEQ/MEQ/TEQ listings. Not perfectly handling overflow, but close enough.

LC - best against GEQ
PF - MEQ
Sword - meeeeh
TH - TEQ and Monster and flex into invulnerable / high armor
CF - Vehicle

This ties to the rule layout complaint: I can't find anything that specifies the Stratagem layout. This might put my issue with Reinforcements to rest (if 'When' is actually not used to specify the timing window then a timing requirement in 'Target' is acceptable) but raises questions like whether I can resolve the effect without a viable target (or resolve the effect with a different unit) and such. Retroactively, I'm fairly sure I seriously overestimated what these Strategem parts are all about. I expected them to be much better defined than... well... literally nothing.

Also, that 'Grenade' Stratagem looks naughty for my Cadian Shock Troops: ~3 Mortal Wounds for potentially 0 CP sounds like a good deal, tho it is also a lot of 4+-s I must pass...

It’s good that everthing has a job, and nothing is purely overshadowed. If it’s worth speccing a captain to clear chaff is another story, but at least the tool for it does the job.

Relic weapon is weak though. Doesn’t seem to have a niche.

 Nevelon wrote:
It’s good that everthing has a job, and nothing is purely overshadowed. If it’s worth speccing a captain to clear chaff is another story, but at least the tool for it does the job.

Relic weapon is weak though. Doesn’t seem to have a niche.

Yea I think either it's a dud or they wrote the datasheet that the sword comes with gear the other options don't allow. But that would buck the old sheet gear options so who knows.

I'd love to see assault termies and storm shields.

 Nevelon wrote:
It’s good that everthing has a job, and nothing is purely overshadowed. If it’s worth speccing a captain to clear chaff is another story, but at least the tool for it does the job.

Relic weapon is weak though. Doesn’t seem to have a niche.

Yeah... I'd almost always want a power fist. Clearing GEQ isn't a job for a captain and chasing vehicles around doesn't seem terribly practical (especially for the terminator captain). The powerfist is top of class against the most common things I want him to fight, or dipping to the good side of average against outliers.

Nurgle's Gift - -1 toughness as the army wide rule then putting Lethal Hits on all your datasheets seems poorly thought out.

Spread the Sickness - the second part of this also seems to be slightly flawed, enemy units near the objective get the Gift. But either you have units protecting the objective so they would have had the Gift anyway. Or you don't have units protecting the objective so they capture it and turn off the Gift?

EightFoldPath wrote:
Nurgle's Gift - -1 toughness as the army wide rule then putting Lethal Hits on all your datasheets seems poorly thought out.

Hmm... someone really didn't think that one through.

And why are Reaper ACs still S7?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And why are Reaper ACs still S7?

I think they just want to make that one more analogous to the assault cannon. Thing is it's hard to know if S7 is very useful or not.

Given Autocannons went up to S9, it seems like an oversight.

And yes, I know the Reaper AC has 'Devastating Wounds', which might be interesting if it was ore than D1.

Death Guard is up!

Here are my thoughts:

As I suspected the army rule is the contagion ability. I though we might get a choice in the matter as Nurgles Gift, while good, can be situational. Maybe there will be a way to change it in the codex.
It is officially an aura now so abilities that effect auras will effect it now and the range increases faster which is nice.

Spread the sickness is kind of trash. The sticky objective ability really feels like they should be a Plague Marines ability to me and that the detachment rule should have been something else. In addition the fact that the objective gets contagions may not a big factor in the early game as by the time a unit is within range in the first two turns they are likely able to move on to the objective and claim it, turning it off. It would be better if the infection could stay forcing enemy units to have a penalty if they try to take the objective.

Surprised they didn't preview Plague marines but terminators instead. Losing an inch of movement is bad, especially now that they are effected by movement penalties. Lethal hits seems to be the new plague weapons which feels worst to me. Everyone else gets rerolls why not our best one?
Still hate that Combi-weapons have be turned into this abomination. The bubonic blade got the strength of the sword and the AP of the axe so...
T6 and Inv4 is nice of course.

The Malignant Plaguecasters is kind of meh. They didn't get the psychic power I wanted, Miasma of Pestilence, and they can roll a backfire. Pestilent Fallout seems worst then before.

The mortar gets more attack and loses AP, not surprising. It is weird it doesn't have Heavy though.

The stratagem is ok but not great as they require critical hits which aren't reliable.

Not too impressed with it but I will have to wait to see the index and the codex to really judge.

So tl;Dr, layers of rules peeled off, situation army bonus, reduced lethality, bit bland. Welcome to the club same as everyone else.

10th is supposed to be an era of "less" lethality and having DG lean into army wide resiliency should help the army last on the table.

I open GW doesn't slap a massive point increase.

Ya not impressed. Where is the FNP?

 whembly wrote:
... and having DG lean into army wide resiliency...

But they don't, really. They lean into making the enemy less resilient (and then using guns that don't need that rule in the first place).

It's all so poorly thought out.

People who wanted a fnp profile extra in a world of reduced lethality, would you accept being utterly pillow fisted and/or horribly expensive to compensate?

Yeah. Sort of echoing points - but not quite sure why people were initially so positive on the DG release in the other thread.

Blightlords seem to have taken quite a step backwards. Terminators were T4 and 5++ while BL were T5 4++ and had Disgustingly Resilient. Well now Terminators are T5 4++, and Blightlords are T6 4++ but no DR. So its now functionally the same to hit both units with S4, S7-9 and S12 and up attacks. Points, synergies, wait and see etc - but that doesn't seem great.

The Plaguecaster may be okay - although I think you will end up with turns where he doesn't do very much due to 12" range on Plague Wind.

Armywide sticky objectives is useful - but when other armies are getting this ability on basic troops, and an impactful detachment ability, I'm not sure its going to be that great. Don't worry - those BL can tag an objective, and then waddle their 4" move up the table? Not really seeing it.

The Plagueburst Mortar has gone from an "anti-anything weapon" (S8 AP-2 2 damage) to a sort of confused S8 AP-1 2 damage profile. Too low S for vehicles, too low AP to MEQ.

Dudeface wrote:
People who wanted a fnp profile extra in a world of reduced lethality, would you accept being utterly pillow fisted and/or horribly expensive to compensate?

A single extra point of T really isn't a lot for the Marine variant specifically known for resilience, though.

They could have done more than that without making them so skewed into toughness that they have to become offensively weak for their points to compensate.

Boosykes wrote:
Ya not impressed. Where is the FNP?

I don't think they should get FNP, but the rules for DG are very meh.

The Plague replacement of Lethal Hits doesn't give a crap about -1T.

I hope that what we're going to see is that characters joining will grant FNP or other abilities that will make everything come together, but right now this is the worst preview.

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
People who wanted a fnp profile extra in a world of reduced lethality, would you accept being utterly pillow fisted and/or horribly expensive to compensate?

A single extra point of T really isn't a lot for the Marine variant specifically known for resilience, though.

They could have done more than that without making them so skewed into toughness that they have to become offensively weak for their points to compensate.

Your options are T, W, Sv, or FnP. If we want to streamline life a little, damage reduction is a conditional extra wounds, FnP is also a form of conditional extra wounds. So what would you have them do without giving them 3w plague marines via one method or another? Or is that the answer? If so what points does that attract?

Tyel wrote:
Blightlords seem to have taken quite a step backwards. Terminators were T4 and 5++ while BL were T5 4++ and had Disgustingly Resilient. Well now Terminators are T5 4++, and Blightlords are T6 4++ but no DR. So its now functionally the same to hit both units with S4, S7-9 and S12 and up attacks. Points, synergies, wait and see etc - but that doesn't seem great.

They dodge S10 doubling them out which includes Battlecannon, Exorcist, Eldar ML, and heavy beamer. There's tons of S5/6 in the previews as well -- and lots of S5 melee.

I think BL Termies are fine. I just have no idea how they'll make Plague Marines worthwhile and bring it all together.

Dudeface wrote:

Your options are T, W, Sv, or FnP. If we want to streamline life a little, damage reduction is a conditional extra wounds, FnP is also a form of conditional extra wounds. So what would you have them do without giving them 3w plague marines via one method or another? Or is that the answer? If so what points does that attract?

IMHO that is kinda the answer. 3W Plague Marines are mathematically mostly the same as giving them a 5+ FNP, but without needing the extra roll.

And IMHO Plague Marines should be expensive.

Question - what OC do people think Poxwalkers will end up with?

 Dysartes wrote:
Question - what OC do people think Poxwalkers will end up with?

Hopefully 1. But I could see a convincing case made for 0.

OC 2 seems unreasonable for how little they have left in the way of a mind, and promotes taking them rather than plague marines.

I could see them being OC 0 as a cheap chaff unit

Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

 Tyran wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Your options are T, W, Sv, or FnP. If we want to streamline life a little, damage reduction is a conditional extra wounds, FnP is also a form of conditional extra wounds. So what would you have them do without giving them 3w plague marines via one method or another? Or is that the answer? If so what points does that attract?

IMHO that is kinda the answer. 3W Plague Marines are mathematically mostly the same as giving them a 5+ FNP, but without needing the extra roll.

And IMHO Plague Marines should be expensive.

Ya an extra wound across the board looks to be the simplest fix. Also they are already pillow fisted look at the Melle profile compared to loyalists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Question - what OC do people think Poxwalkers will end up with?

Most likely 0 at most they will be 1

 Dysartes wrote:
Question - what OC do people think Poxwalkers will end up with?

I’m also in the 1 or 0 camp.

Boosykes wrote:
Ya not impressed. Where is the FNP?

Maybe that's where the Plague Surgeon comes in?

Dudeface wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
People who wanted a fnp profile extra in a world of reduced lethality, would you accept being utterly pillow fisted and/or horribly expensive to compensate?

A single extra point of T really isn't a lot for the Marine variant specifically known for resilience, though.

They could have done more than that without making them so skewed into toughness that they have to become offensively weak for their points to compensate.

Your options are T, W, Sv, or FnP. If we want to streamline life a little, damage reduction is a conditional extra wounds, FnP is also a form of conditional extra wounds. So what would you have them do without giving them 3w plague marines via one method or another? Or is that the answer? If so what points does that attract?

I would just give them an extra wound. 3W Plague Marines sounds fine to me. Could even leave them at T4 (T5 for Termies) and have the extra wound be the sole durability buff.

Poxwalkers could be OC0 but with characters bumping them to 1.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Poxwalkers could be OC0 but with characters bumping them to 1.

I wouldn't be terribly shocked if that ended up being a Typhus-only thing.

Voss wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Poxwalkers could be OC0 but with characters bumping them to 1.

I wouldn't be terribly shocked if that ended up being a Typhus-only thing.

That would actually be a really cool mechanic for wraith guard/blades and spirit seers. Represent their wraith sight problems in a relatively mild but still fluffy sort of way.

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

I think it is a good mind set to have about the first books we know we are going to get. So if custodes rules are meh, waiting 5-6 months isn't that bad. For other armies it could be a bumpy ride though. Waiting 2+ years for a new rule set, while till it drops you are playing index vs codex, can be harsh.

I wonder if Custodes end up being "down graded" by staying with the stats they have now, or will we see them running around with t6. It could be fun to watch.

The eldar and DG psykers make me really worried about my dudes.

DG have been a real decent army for almost all of 9th and I see nothing wrong with the malignant plague caster. Sure, he can't cast Miasma anymore, but outside of that? His witchfire is powerful, the debuff makes anyone without a decent melee weapon wound terminators on 6s and slowing down units actually has a lot of value for an army full of slow units with powerful melee.

Outside of the weirdboy it's the best psyker we have seen so far.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
Ya not impressed. Where is the FNP?

I don't think they should get FNP, but the rules for DG are very meh.

The Plague replacement of Lethal Hits doesn't give a crap about -1T.

I hope that what we're going to see is that characters joining will grant FNP or other abilities that will make everything come together, but right now this is the worst preview.

The -1T isn't bad. I would have preferred a different mechanic for altering the radius. 3 inches normally, 6 inches on an objective, 9 inches for (Troops) on the objective to continue the theme they're trying to get started) The real snooze is looking like Spreading The Sickness. Sticky Capping is nice, but if you're not on the objective, and the other player is close enough to get the aura they're usually going to be in range to cap it - this is usually going to be done on their turn when you can't benefit from their lowered Toughness - Unless there's something we haven't seen yet (More attacks on the other players turn, a bunch of or populular units without OC and Nurgle's Gift, etc). - Its just hard to see many scenarios where they'll be close enough to get sick, too far to cap an empty objective, and vulnerable to your attacks between the start of their turn and the end of their turn.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

Well, we've seen less than a smidgen of the whole picture, but I really don't expect any of the listed books on the roadmap to change radically. Certainly Marines, Tyranids, Necrons and Ad Mech are locked in tight.

The main divergence will be detachment abilities for the additional detachments we know nothing about (which imo is a positive thing for Necrons and AdMech, I really dislike the feel of a necron army with a lot of characters on babysitting duty). The faction abilities will barely change (if at all), and I don't expect a major departure from the initial datacards to the first 9 books.

Voss wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

Well, we've seen less than a smidgen of the whole picture, but I really don't expect any of the listed books on the roadmap to change radically. Certainly Marines, Tyranids, Necrons and Ad Mech are locked in tight.

The main divergence will be detachment abilities for the additional detachments we know nothing about (which imo is a positive thing for Necrons and AdMech, I really dislike the feel of a necron army with a lot of characters on babysitting duty). The faction abilities will barely change (if at all), and I don't expect a major departure from the initial datacards to the first 9 books.

For whatever it's worth they did say back at the reveal the stats on the cards wouldn't be changing when the codexes came out.

Iirc they said the codexes would just be lore, crusades and detachments with the strategems.

Playing codex vs index won't be that harsh.

You have the same amount of rules for your army both with and without codex. You will just get different packages of stratagems + detachment rule + enchantments, which will replace the default one. Honestly if it wasn't for the fact that with more detachments there are higher chances of one being broken, I would even dare to say that dexes will not affect balance. Which would be a first.

 Hellebore wrote:

Voss wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

Well, we've seen less than a smidgen of the whole picture, but I really don't expect any of the listed books on the roadmap to change radically. Certainly Marines, Tyranids, Necrons and Ad Mech are locked in tight.

The main divergence will be detachment abilities for the additional detachments we know nothing about (which imo is a positive thing for Necrons and AdMech, I really dislike the feel of a necron army with a lot of characters on babysitting duty). The faction abilities will barely change (if at all), and I don't expect a major departure from the initial datacards to the first 9 books.

For whatever it's worth they did say back at the reveal the stats on the cards wouldn't be changing when the codexes came out.

Iirc they said the codexes would just be lore, crusades and detachments with the strategems.

Yes, and 2 - 3 of those things could considerably change one's experience with an army.
Thus I'll wait to pass judgment until I have all the rules for a faction.

And then of course there's whatever changes will occur as knee jerk reactions to player complaints & trying to manipulate the tourney win %s.... or do you think these things will magically disapear?

Spoletta wrote:
Playing codex vs index won't be that harsh.

You have the same amount of rules for your army both with and without codex. You will just get different packages of stratagems + detachment rule + enchantments, which will replace the default one. Honestly if it wasn't for the fact that with more detachments there are higher chances of one being broken, I would even dare to say that dexes will not affect balance. Which would be a first.

In 8th it worked for about 3 Codizes, SM, DG and IIRC GK weren't that far off. Then it went downhill and needed FAQs and CAs to help the Index factions.
But we'll see how it works out in the end, as you say it's very likely that some of the detachment boni will be very strong and others not. The usual: Nurgle detachment gets 4+ FNP for everyone, Nightlords gets -1 ld for opponents in CC on thursdays .

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Who ever is at the studio that writes DG rules, must have a real hate boner for them. 9th ed for DG was like 8th was for GK. new FAQ, DG get new nerfs and buffs are side grades or stuff that should have been there from day one of codex.

Condolances to the DG players. Maybe their HQ will somehow turn this around.

I'll reserve any real judgment - for DG or any other force - until their actual codex arrives.
This crap may persist. Or it might get modified. Or change radically....

I'll wait until we get full army rules and points.

Based on what we know now dg can be worst or best army or anything in between.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
DG have been a real decent army for almost all of 9th and I see nothing wrong with the malignant plague caster. Sure, he can't cast Miasma anymore, but outside of that? His witchfire is powerful, the debuff makes anyone without a decent melee weapon wound terminators on 6s and slowing down units actually has a lot of value for an army full of slow units with powerful melee.

Outside of the weirdboy it's the best psyker we have seen so far.

Making units impossible to shoot outside 18" aura is pretty decent psychic power as well.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Playing codex vs index won't be that harsh.

You have the same amount of rules for your army both with and without codex. You will just get different packages of stratagems + detachment rule + enchantments, which will replace the default one. Honestly if it wasn't for the fact that with more detachments there are higher chances of one being broken, I would even dare to say that dexes will not affect balance. Which would be a first.

In 8th it worked for about 3 Codizes, SM, DG and IIRC GK weren't that far off. Then it went downhill and needed FAQs and CAs to help the Index factions.
But we'll see how it works out in the end, as you say it's very likely that some of the detachment boni will be very strong and others not. The usual: Nurgle detachment gets 4+ FNP for everyone, Nightlords gets -1 ld for opponents in CC on thursdays .

that is because the GK codex was the index copy pasted, with stuff added that was in the codex. The real GK codex, was the the PA book that came out at the end of 8th. That one had actual rules, that made GK something more then just overcosted marines with bad rules. It made terminators valid and paladins an actualy OP unit for a few seconds, before covid closed and killed a lot of stores. Later on playing stuff like Index anything vs the new mechanicus or DE required a certain mind set from the index player. One not many share.

Spoletta wrote:
Playing codex vs index won't be that harsh.

You have the same amount of rules for your army both with and without codex. You will just get different packages of stratagems + detachment rule + enchantments, which will replace the default one. Honestly if it wasn't for the fact that with more detachments there are higher chances of one being broken, I would even dare to say that dexes will not affect balance. Which would be a first.

I'd say that holds until they split out some detachments and potential faction abilities for Iron Hands, Word Bearers etc the subfactions of the CM/CSM - especially ones that probably should get split off but haven't.

They need to keep playing testing against the first, say, four codexes in each edition. That would have a better chance at maintaining an even playing field.

One theory that I've heard is that any abilities similar to that of DR might be connected to the Nurgle keyword.

 Souleater wrote:
They need to keep playing testing against the first, say, four codexes in each edition. That would have a better chance at maintaining an even playing field.

the fact that over how many editions now have they not done that and used "ohhh new shiny!!!" to sell models, to then nerf them slightly before they repeat the cycle tends to suggest they won't.

whats needed is for on a desk at GW right now there to be the outline rules for all factions already laid out and designed as a single set

won't happen, this is the 10th edition, most games are pretty good by the 2nd and more or less as good as they will get by the 3rd

Imperial Knight Preview

At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

against a 30 man unit with perfect rolls, 24 shots? I think it might be a bit much, the low AP does help keep it under control though.

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

against a 30 man unit with perfect rolls, 24 shots? I think it might be a bit much, the low AP does help keep it under control though.

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

against a 30 man unit with perfect rolls, 24 shots? I think it might be a bit much, the low AP does help keep it under control though.

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

Napkin time:

It's more 2-3 but that feels better in honesty? The question there is the RFBC that much better now or is the blighlords that are that bit worse? I don't feel a kight battle cannon should struggle to kill 1 terminator though either way.

 Jidmah wrote:

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

My math gives me 2 dead blightlords.

Roll (average): 2D6+6 (13 shots), 3+ hits (8.67 hits), 3+ wounds (5.78 wounds), 3+ save (1.93 failed saves).

Yea 2 on average ( when shooting at 10 ). 3 ( 20% ) or 4 ( 11% ) seems pretty likely, too. But there's also 33% for 0-1. Not crazy although at the moment these are roughly equal cost units. Perhaps it's irrelevant, but those BL termies have no good way to pull down a knight with the combi-weapon issue. Maybe that's their goal?

 Tyran wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

My math gives me 2 dead blightlords.

Roll (average): 2D6+6 (13 shots), 3+ hits (8.67 hits), 3+ wounds (5.78 wounds), 3+ save (1.93 failed saves).

You are right. I calculated a 3+ save to be a 2/3 chance to deal damage which is obviously just me being stupid.

leopard wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
They need to keep playing testing against the first, say, four codexes in each edition. That would have a better chance at maintaining an even playing field.

the fact that over how many editions now have they not done that and used "ohhh new shiny!!!" to sell models, to then nerf them slightly before they repeat the cycle tends to suggest they won't.

whats needed is for on a desk at GW right now there to be the outline rules for all factions already laid out and designed as a single set

won't happen, this is the 10th edition, most games are pretty good by the 2nd and more or less as good as they will get by the 3rd

You are asking gw to stop their successful marketing trick and take less profits. Yeah that's going to work.

You're assuming that being unable to maintain stock for even pre-orders is a "successful marketing trick", or even intentional.

tneva82 wrote:

leopard wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
They need to keep playing testing against the first, say, four codexes in each edition. That would have a better chance at maintaining an even playing field.

the fact that over how many editions now have they not done that and used "ohhh new shiny!!!" to sell models, to then nerf them slightly before they repeat the cycle tends to suggest they won't.

whats needed is for on a desk at GW right now there to be the outline rules for all factions already laid out and designed as a single set

won't happen, this is the 10th edition, most games are pretty good by the 2nd and more or less as good as they will get by the 3rd

You are asking gw to stop their successful marketing trick and take less profits. Yeah that's going to work.

This is TOO THIS DAY, the single dumbest myth about GW's releases.

Tell me, how many Gladiator tanks do you think were purchased because of their rules? Storm Speeders? Repulsors on release?

What about The hurricane bunker thing? The pogo stick turret? Literally every primaris model in the first 2 years of Primaris releases? The Sisters of Battle Castigator? What about the many MANY instances of new codexes coming out worse than the old ones?

People remember the Custodes through Tyranids run and Drukhari/Admech dropping in the same month and think the end of ninth was just powercreep, powercreep, powercreep. Meanwhile Sisters, Genestealer Cults, GK, AND Tsons all came out in that period and were mediocre.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

My math gives me 2 dead blightlords.

Roll (average): 2D6+6 (13 shots), 3+ hits (8.67 hits), 3+ wounds (5.78 wounds), 3+ save (1.93 failed saves).

You are right. I calculated a 3+ save to be a 2/3 chance to deal damage which is obviously just me being stupid.

If it matters, you forgot to add in 1 extra attack for Blast. Every 5 models adds 1 Attack. Just for accuracy's sake.


So something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that Nurgle's Gift stacks. It says within range of this unit, not within range of an unit. Feel free to contest that objective and enjoy having -2T. Also, if you take any Plauge Marines in a CSM detachment they lose the ability.

ERJAK 809431 11535682 wrote:
People remember the Custodes through Tyranids run and Drukhari/Admech dropping in the same month and think the end of ninth was just powercreep, powercreep, powercreep. Meanwhile Sisters, Genestealer Cults, GK, AND Tsons all came out in that period and were mediocre.

Hey GK were fun, but then they cut our second GM and released armies that kill NDKs too easy. Plus from a GK players perspective even if it wasn't DE tier of mind blowing good. Comparing to the 8th ed codex or the 8th codex being run in 9th, it was an improvment, especialy if someone doesn't like terminator models. The GK from 9th required practicaly no investment to be run as a better army with better rules, comparing to what people run in 8th. Maybe some people had to buy a librarian and a 5th NDK, and that is all.

@Karol

I know you don't have the option of playing anything but Matched in your meta, but everytime I see some one make a statement like this I have to remind them:

The rule that took away your second GM was a Matched-play-only rule.

Just like all the people upset about Ro3 always forget that it was only ever a Matched Play rule.

Just like the loss of Air Calvary was Matched play only.

Like I said, I know that doesn't help you, because no one will Crusade with you. But for accuracy sake, #NotAllWaysToPlay.

BomBomHotdog wrote:

So something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that Nurgle's Gift stacks. It says within range of this unit, not within range of an unit. Feel free to contest that objective and enjoy having -2T.

That presumes Auras stack. We haven't seen those rules yet, but I doubt they do- its hugely problematic, and not just for death guard.
Additionally, the next sentence in the article implies its just -1 for being in contagion range:

Nurgle’s Gift blesses every Death Guard unit with an aura that increases over the course of the battle. Enemy units in Contagion Range have their Toughness reduced by 1 as unnatural plagues overwhelm them

If it does stack, a MSU death guard army can drop the entire enemy army to T0 once in range. So... obviously it does not. That's simply non-functional as a game mechanic.


----

Also, if you take any Plauge Marines in a CSM detachment they lose the ability.

Its a faction ability, so obviously yes. They'd have Dark Pacts instead (if PM can be taken in a CSM army)

But with the way datacards are designed, any 'plague marines' that CSM can take will be in their pack of cards/codex, with dark pact already in place as their faction ability, and 'heretic astartes' as their faction keyword. Sharing units across factions isn't really viable with this design.

Voss wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:

So something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that Nurgle's Gift stacks. It says within range of this unit, not within range of an unit. Feel free to contest that objective and enjoy having -2T.

That presumes Auras stack. We haven't seen those rules yet, but I doubt they do- its hugely problematic, and not just for death guard.
Additionally, the next sentence in the article implies its just -1 for being in contagion range:

Nurgle’s Gift blesses every Death Guard unit with an aura that increases over the course of the battle. Enemy units in Contagion Range have their Toughness reduced by 1 as unnatural plagues overwhelm them

If it does stack, a MSU death guard army can drop the entire enemy army to T0 once in range. So... obviously it does not. That's simply non-functional as a game mechanic.

Assuming this isn't an elaborate troll job, you an only be affected by the same Aura once.

PenitentJake wrote:
@Karol

I know you don't have the option of playing anything but Matched in your meta, but everytime I see some one make a statement like this I have to remind them:

The rule that took away your second GM was a Matched-play-only rule.

Just like all the people upset about Ro3 always forget that it was only ever a Matched Play rule.

Just like the loss of Air Calvary was Matched play only.

Like I said, I know that doesn't help you, because no one will Crusade with you. But for accuracy sake, #NotAllWaysToPlay.

For most people matched play is still going to be the standard so Karol's post is accurate. Just because you don't play standard matched play doesn't mean you aren't a minority.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

For most people matched play is still going to be the standard so Karol's post is accurate. Just because you don't play standard matched play doesn't mean you aren't a minority.

I'm fully aware that I'm a minority.

That doesn't mean that double GMs aren't still available in Crusade and Open play.

I'd just like people who complain about 9th to actually say "I am complaining about 9th edition Matched play" when that's what they are actually doing. People fail to do this so often that there are whole swaths of people who probably don't even know that their complaints don't universally apply.

Specificity is good when people are trying to communicate asynchronously in a medium that doesn't allow for paraverbal communication and proxemics.

Most 9th Ed play to most people was matched play though, so pointing out "Oh, that was a matched play rule only!" is a distinction without a difference.

I mean you might as well be saying "Oh, but that rule was only relevant in 98% of games!".

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm fully aware that I'm a minority.

That doesn't mean that double GMs aren't still available in Crusade and Open play.

I'd just like people who complain about 9th to actually say "I am complaining about 9th edition Matched play" when that's what they are actually doing. People fail to do this so often that there are whole swaths of people who probably don't even know that their complaints don't universally apply.

Specificity is good when people are trying to communicate asynchronously in a medium that doesn't allow for paraverbal communication and proxemics.

You're just being a pedant. There is very little discussion of anything outside of matched play on this site so there's no reason to make a distinction.

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:

So something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that Nurgle's Gift stacks. It says within range of this unit, not within range of an unit. Feel free to contest that objective and enjoy having -2T.

That presumes Auras stack. We haven't seen those rules yet, but I doubt they do- its hugely problematic, and not just for death guard.
Additionally, the next sentence in the article implies its just -1 for being in contagion range:

Nurgle’s Gift blesses every Death Guard unit with an aura that increases over the course of the battle. Enemy units in Contagion Range have their Toughness reduced by 1 as unnatural plagues overwhelm them

If it does stack, a MSU death guard army can drop the entire enemy army to T0 once in range. So... obviously it does not. That's simply non-functional as a game mechanic.

Assuming this isn't an elaborate troll job, you an only be affected by the same Aura once.

Spoiler:

Aha. I figured that had to be somewhere, but wasn't sure if it was on the leaked pages, and didn't have any luck scrolling through the mess.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm fully aware that I'm a minority.

That doesn't mean that double GMs aren't still available in Crusade and Open play.

I'd just like people who complain about 9th to actually say "I am complaining about 9th edition Matched play" when that's what they are actually doing. People fail to do this so often that there are whole swaths of people who probably don't even know that their complaints don't universally apply.

Specificity is good when people are trying to communicate asynchronously in a medium that doesn't allow for paraverbal communication and proxemics.

You're just being a pedant. There is very little discussion of anything outside of matched play on this site so there's no reason to make a distinction.

A large amount of discussions here are agnostic about matched/crusade. Most of the rules overlap between the two, and people are using the same codexes. It is worth pointing out that there are other options. “You can/can’t do that” sometimes needs to have a footnote.

Matched might be the majority here on Dakka, but it is not exclusively the only way we play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Most 9th Ed play to most people was matched play though, so pointing out "Oh, that was a matched play rule only!" is a distinction without a difference.

I mean you might as well be saying "Oh, but that rule was only relevant in 98% of games!".

If Crusade was as unpopular as you seem to state that it is, do you think GW would have carried it over to 10th?

Now you might mean "Most 9th Ed play to most people ON DAKKA was Matched play" - that's 100% true; I've only seen I think three people on this forum stand up for Crusade.

And it is also 100% true to say that other sources seem to indicate that Matched is the most popular too- the big Goonhammer survey from a while back confirms this to be true, for example. But they said that 20-30% of their respondents preferred Crusade (if memory serves correctly). This figure seems more accurate, because it supports GW's decision to keep Crusade. Print runs for Crusade are obviously smaller for Crusade than for matched, but the product wouldn't have been carried forward into a new edition if it didn't make money for the company in the last edition, so somebody's playing it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You're just being a pedant.

Honestly? Maybe a little.

Especially since my response was to Karol- I know English isn't his first language (but holy crow dude, your English got way, way better after that big break you took a while back- Way to go!).

I really like Karol's posts. I specifically prefaced my post to indicate that I understood the situation he's in- we've had these same discussions so many times that we can anticipate each other's posts- I mean you guys all know as soon as you say my name there's a 50/50 shot I'm going to be talking Crusade, right?

But it's obvious that both you and HBMC want me to shut up about this, so I will.

 Nevelon wrote:


A large amount of discussions here are agnostic about matched/crusade. Most of the rules overlap between the two, and people are using the same codexes. It is worth pointing out that there are other options. “You can/can’t do that” sometimes needs to have a footnote.

Matched might be the majority here on Dakka, but it is not exclusively the only way we play.

Thanks for that bro. I feel like I didn't entirely waste my keystrokes.

But I've already agreed to let it go, because neither of us are going to make headway in this discussion. Cheers!

PenitentJake wrote:
If Crusade was as unpopular as you seem to state that it is, do you think GW would have carried it over to 10th?

PenitentJake wrote:
But it's obvious that [you] want me to shut up about this, so I will.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or pout dramatically like this when people point out that your caveat ain't much of one.

I was trying to be nice, but what 5th said is right: You are being pedantic about this.

I like Crusade. I champion Crusade. I think it's a great idea and I'm really happy that they're keeping it going in 10th. But I also realise that most games are matched play and that's the way it is, so saying "But it was a matched play rule only!" might as well just be "It was a rule only used by most of the people playing the game!".

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that any abilities similar to that of DR might be connected to the Nurgle keyword.

DR? Diminishing Returns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

Given the Range/Rapid Fire interaction? Probably. The chances that thing won't get Rapid Fire is pretty slim.

On the flipside, the OC numbers look like they might still be too low - it loses to 5 Cadian Shock Troops. Armiger OC should (probably) be floating around somewhere around 20 at that point they're tying against 10 of What-Used-To-Be-Troops-with-OC2 each - Tacticals, Berserkers, Sisters, Guardsmen and so on - and adjust that based on what skewing "Full Armiger" can and can't do against prototypical Guard/Ork/Nids or Marine/Khorne/etc armies.

I'm a little confused by the Chainbreaker Multi-laser - unless Super Heavy Walker or some other rule lets him shoot both, the edge cases where you'd pick that over the low intensity las-impulsor are pretty few and far between.

Breton wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that any abilities similar to that of DR might be connected to the Nurgle keyword.

DR? Diminishing Returns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

Given the Range/Rapid Fire interaction? Probably. The chances that thing won't get Rapid Fire is pretty slim.

On the flipside, the OC numbers look like they might still be too low - it loses to 5 Cadian Shock Troops. Armiger OC should (probably) be floating around somewhere around 20 at that point they're tying against 10 of What-Used-To-Be-Troops-with-OC2 each - Tacticals, Berserkers, Sisters, Guardsmen and so on - and adjust that based on what skewing "Full Armiger" can and can't do against prototypical Guard/Ork/Nids or Marine/Khorne/etc armies.

I'm a little confused by the Chainbreaker Multi-laser - unless Super Heavy Walker or some other rule lets him shoot both, the edge cases where you'd pick that over the low intensity las-impulsor are pretty few and far between.

Disgustingly Resilient.

Correct me if I am wrong and this has changed in 10th but you can shoot with all of a models ranged weapons when you shoot so you shouldn't need to choose between shooting the Multi-laser and the las-impulsor.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
If Crusade was as unpopular as you seem to state that it is, do you think GW would have carried it over to 10th?

PenitentJake wrote:
But it's obvious that [you] want me to shut up about this, so I will.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or pout dramatically like this when people point out that your caveat ain't much of one.

I was trying to be nice, but what 5th said is right: You are being pedantic about this.

I like Crusade. I champion Crusade. I think it's a great idea and I'm really happy that they're keeping it going in 10th. But I also realise that most games are matched play and that's the way it is, so saying "But it was a matched play rule only!" might as well just be "It was a rule only used by most of the people playing the game!".

Polls in various communities have shown that crusade is the second most played mode, only slightly less popular than the most recent tournament pack and slightly more popular than Tempest of War and playing matched play directly from the book. The vast majority (80+%) play in one of those four ways, though boarding patrol might have taken a chunk out of that.

That said, most people playing crusade adapt the balance dataslates and limitations from matched played (and use points) because - despite the opinion of a few individuals - those balance improvements tend to lead to better narrative games as well.

 Jidmah wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
If Crusade was as unpopular as you seem to state that it is, do you think GW would have carried it over to 10th?

PenitentJake wrote:
But it's obvious that [you] want me to shut up about this, so I will.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or pout dramatically like this when people point out that your caveat ain't much of one.

I was trying to be nice, but what 5th said is right: You are being pedantic about this.

I like Crusade. I champion Crusade. I think it's a great idea and I'm really happy that they're keeping it going in 10th. But I also realise that most games are matched play and that's the way it is, so saying "But it was a matched play rule only!" might as well just be "It was a rule only used by most of the people playing the game!".

Polls in various communities have shown that crusade is the second most played mode, only slightly less popular than the most recent tournament pack and slightly more popular than Tempest of War and playing matched play directly from the book. The vast majority (80+%) play in one of those four ways, though boarding patrol might have taken a chunk out of that.

That said, most people playing crusade adapt the balance dataslates and limitations from matched played (and use points) because - despite the opinion of a few individuals - those balance improvements tend to lead to better narrative games as well.

Hardly surprising, afterall it's difficult to have a narrative when the game collapses due to certain units or mechanics or rules.

Sadly though alot of these changes wouldn't have been necessary if gw did test more completly...before release and dropped the stretched out rules-release cycle in favour for a rules all at once approach.

The later will probably never happen though, since the rules are the recurring spending factor gw has.

 alextroy wrote:
Assuming this isn't an elaborate troll job, you an only be affected by the same Aura once.

Spoiler:

Argh. Random characteristic still determined "when required". In aos that has resulted arquments in when it is required...

At least move got changed to when model picked to move. Pretty sure here clearly you get to roll before determining whether to run. In aos side move is also determine when required and arquments fly is m characteristic required to decide whether to run or not...

Still whatabout 1/phase bonus to shooting. Before or after knowing # of shots?

2 years aos players been debating and sent questions to gw and still no response.

 KingGarland wrote:

Breton wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that any abilities similar to that of DR might be connected to the Nurgle keyword.

DR? Diminishing Returns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

Given the Range/Rapid Fire interaction? Probably. The chances that thing won't get Rapid Fire is pretty slim.

On the flipside, the OC numbers look like they might still be too low - it loses to 5 Cadian Shock Troops. Armiger OC should (probably) be floating around somewhere around 20 at that point they're tying against 10 of What-Used-To-Be-Troops-with-OC2 each - Tacticals, Berserkers, Sisters, Guardsmen and so on - and adjust that based on what skewing "Full Armiger" can and can't do against prototypical Guard/Ork/Nids or Marine/Khorne/etc armies.

I'm a little confused by the Chainbreaker Multi-laser - unless Super Heavy Walker or some other rule lets him shoot both, the edge cases where you'd pick that over the low intensity las-impulsor are pretty few and far between.

Disgustingly Resilient.

Correct me if I am wrong and this has changed in 10th but you can shoot with all of a models ranged weapons when you shoot so you shouldn't need to choose between shooting the Multi-laser and the las-impulsor.

You can't with melee - I haven't seen yet if that applies to the guns as well.

From the leaked Rulebook images, ýou can shoot with all of your ranged weapons.

tneva82 809431 11535874 wrote:

2 years aos players been debating and sent questions to gw and still no response.

Slow and steady, that is how GW operates most of the time. Took them 3 years to notice that Abhore the Witch lets you double dip on kill secondaries vs "magic" armies. lol

so I have been thinking about this a bit.

At first I saw the combining of rules and loss of weapon types as bad, I like the granular nature of having all sorts of options, gear ect. on a model, I do not like that GW over the last few editions has forced monopose models on us and due to that removed options.

And then I played battletech again and it hit me, why is it that I do not care as much that each model I have in battletech has the correct loadout on the model when compared to the mech sheet and why do I not just apply this mentality to my 40k army.

So I did, this has allowed me to start kitbashing together all sorts of things now, Volkite Agressors, Plasma incinerators for my Hellblasters, Lightning claw and thunder hammer on my Gravis captain, due to the
homogenization of the data sheets I can go nuts as the model is no longer a character, its a token, a representative of the data sheet, as long as the loadout is vaguely correct the rest does not matter anymore with 10th.

I know this comment is out of nowhere but I thought I would share a musing.

 Formosa wrote:
why is it that I do not care as much that each model I have in battletech has the correct loadout on the model when compared to the mech sheet and why do I not just apply this mentality to my 40k army

I tie the difference to the compared price tag and detail on my Battletech and 40k models. I do remember when Battletech tried to go 40k with Dark Age and have premium-priced but high(ish)-detail models that - surprise surprise - had the rules to match their loadout.

 Formosa wrote:
so I have been thinking about this a bit.

At first I saw the combining of rules and loss of weapon types as bad, I like the granular nature of having all sorts of options, gear ect. on a model, I do not like that GW over the last few editions has forced monopose models on us and due to that removed options.

And then I played battletech again and it hit me, why is it that I do not care as much that each model I have in battletech has the correct loadout on the model when compared to the mech sheet and why do I not just apply this mentality to my 40k army.

So I did, this has allowed me to start kitbashing together all sorts of things now, Volkite Agressors, Plasma incinerators for my Hellblasters, Lightning claw and thunder hammer on my Gravis captain, due to the
homogenization of the data sheets I can go nuts as the model is no longer a character, its a token, a representative of the data sheet, as long as the loadout is vaguely correct the rest does not matter anymore with 10th.

I know this comment is out of nowhere but I thought I would share a musing.

You can follow the spirit of WYSWYG without literally being WYSWYG.

If you have a captain with a pair of CC weapons, what I see is a blender who’s going to atomize anything he touches. Which is what I get. Doe it mater that his datasheet lists a powerfirst and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly. The mini delivers on its promise.

Now it he’s equipped with some sort of relic blaster and has a notable shooting attack? That’s not on the model, and could lead to gotcha moments where what was seen is not what was gotten.

And it’s less of an issue for non-marine armies. Does the average person know the difference between scything talons, rending claws, bone swords, or crushing claws? When going over my list at the start of the game I note units with general roles. “These guys have the talons that cash out infantry, this one has the anti tank gun. Big guy over here shoots plasma across the table” WYSWYG only goes so far. What they see is a horde of bugs with random unknown stabby and shooty things. But they have no idea what they are looking at. So in the spirit of fairness (and to save them half an hour of reading my codex) I just tell them what they are getting.

With marines people actually know what they are looking at, so when they get something else it can cause trouble.

 Nevelon wrote:
Does it matter that his datasheet lists a powerfist and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly.

I would say this is pretty disappointing. I assume when my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with another Special Snowflake Badass then something special and badass happens, not just a generic exchange of generic blows that can be perfectly replicated with Cookie Cutters too. Extra points if my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with a Cookie Cutter and gets his butt handed to him because neither his specialness nor his badassitude matters in any shape or form.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
so I have been thinking about this a bit.

At first I saw the combining of rules and loss of weapon types as bad, I like the granular nature of having all sorts of options, gear ect. on a model, I do not like that GW over the last few editions has forced monopose models on us and due to that removed options.

And then I played battletech again and it hit me, why is it that I do not care as much that each model I have in battletech has the correct loadout on the model when compared to the mech sheet and why do I not just apply this mentality to my 40k army.

So I did, this has allowed me to start kitbashing together all sorts of things now, Volkite Agressors, Plasma incinerators for my Hellblasters, Lightning claw and thunder hammer on my Gravis captain, due to the
homogenization of the data sheets I can go nuts as the model is no longer a character, its a token, a representative of the data sheet, as long as the loadout is vaguely correct the rest does not matter anymore with 10th.

I know this comment is out of nowhere but I thought I would share a musing.

You can follow the spirit of WYSWYG without literally being WYSWYG.

If you have a captain with a pair of CC weapons, what I see is a blender who’s going to atomize anything he touches. Which is what I get. Doe it mater that his datasheet lists a powerfirst and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly. The mini delivers on its promise.

Now it he’s equipped with some sort of relic blaster and has a notable shooting attack? That’s not on the model, and could lead to gotcha moments where what was seen is not what was gotten.

And it’s less of an issue for non-marine armies. Does the average person know the difference between scything talons, rending claws, bone swords, or crushing claws? When going over my list at the start of the game I note units with general roles. “These guys have the talons that cash out infantry, this one has the anti tank gun. Big guy over here shoots plasma across the table” WYSWYG only goes so far. What they see is a horde of bugs with random unknown stabby and shooty things. But they have no idea what they are looking at. So in the spirit of fairness (and to save them half an hour of reading my codex) I just tell them what they are getting.

With marines people actually know what they are looking at, so when they get something else it can cause trouble.

Yep all completely fair, its more weapon swaps to represent the thing than just having a totally made up loadout that does not exist in the rules, I want to customise not confuse or "Gotcha" people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Does it matter that his datasheet lists a powerfist and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly.

I would say this is pretty disappointing. I assume when my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with another Special Snowflake Badass then something special and badass happens, not just a generic exchange of generic blows that can be perfectly replicated with Cookie Cutters too. Extra points if my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with a Cookie Cutter and gets his butt handed to him because neither his specialness nor his badassitude matters in any shape or form.

Also a fair comment but I think that is where Crusade is going to come in, my assumption is that Crusade is going to be expanded with more relics and gear and that is the thing that will allow our models to get their character, not perfect I grant you but if I really want to go whole hoc on making my guy, I play Heresy.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Does it matter that his datasheet lists a powerfist and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly.

I would say this is pretty disappointing. I assume when my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with another Special Snowflake Badass then something special and badass happens, not just a generic exchange of generic blows that can be perfectly replicated with Cookie Cutters too. Extra points if my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with a Cookie Cutter and gets his butt handed to him because neither his specialness nor his badassitude matters in any shape or form.

I’m an old school gamer from a grittier time, where we reveled in the tiny distractions between options. I get that.

GW has moved on.

But if someone wants to fudge the little things so his badass looks like he wants him to, and there is not a huge mental disconnect with WYSWYG, I’m OK with his models deviating from the cookie cutter NMNR options.

I’m not thrilled about the loss of options. I think it was not at an unreasonable level. Obviously GW wants it simpler.

Breton wrote:
Given the Range/Rapid Fire interaction? Probably. The chances that thing won't get Rapid Fire is pretty slim.

On the flipside, the OC numbers look like they might still be too low - it loses to 5 Cadian Shock Troops. Armiger OC should (probably) be floating around somewhere around 20 at that point they're tying against 10 of What-Used-To-Be-Troops-with-OC2 each - Tacticals, Berserkers, Sisters, Guardsmen and so on - and adjust that based on what skewing "Full Armiger" can and can't do against prototypical Guard/Ork/Nids or Marine/Khorne/etc armies.

What's kind of scary is Chaos is allowed to double up on the RFBC. So either it will be a ton of points or totally brutal.

I think the low-ish OC makes sense. Knights appear to be reasonably killy. Points will be what matters now.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Does it matter that his datasheet lists a powerfist and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly.

I would say this is pretty disappointing. I assume when my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with another Special Snowflake Badass then something special and badass happens, not just a generic exchange of generic blows that can be perfectly replicated with Cookie Cutters too. Extra points if my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with a Cookie Cutter and gets his butt handed to him because neither his specialness nor his badassitude matters in any shape or form.

Is this... ironic? I have to ask, because I've never seen 'special snowflake' used as anything as anything other than derogatory. Its been quite a while for 'badass' to be anything but tongue in cheek either.

Voss wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Does it matter that his datasheet lists a powerfist and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly.

I would say this is pretty disappointing. I assume when my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with another Special Snowflake Badass then something special and badass happens, not just a generic exchange of generic blows that can be perfectly replicated with Cookie Cutters too. Extra points if my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with a Cookie Cutter and gets his butt handed to him because neither his specialness nor his badassitude matters in any shape or form.

Is this... ironic?

Kind of. I'm not saying the expectations are justified (this is a completely different can of worms), only that they are not fulfilled.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
why is it that I do not care as much that each model I have in battletech has the correct loadout on the model when compared to the mech sheet and why do I not just apply this mentality to my 40k army

I tie the difference to the compared price tag and detail on my Battletech and 40k models. I do remember when Battletech tried to go 40k with Dark Age and have premium-priced but high(ish)-detail models that - surprise surprise - had the rules to match their loadout.

Dark Age was NOT an attempt to take Btech the 40k route.
It turned it into a collectible minis game in the MageKnight/HeroClix style. Each mech having multiple variations was simply ideal for the format...

But if you seriously want a model of some specific mech varient for regular Btech? Then Ironwind miniatures very likely has you covered. They produce an insane amount of variants - all in metal - these days.

So with the lily brain things and the drone snow being tokens they're leaning into the visual game aids thing more.

Dudeface wrote:
So with the lily brain things and the drone snow being tokens they're leaning into the visual game aids thing more.

It makes a lot of sense, remembering all the stuff was a huge mental load, and in cases like Drones, or Ammo/Oiler grots, some Inquisition Henchmen etc. the body was not that important anyway and it was more or less just a carrier for an ability anyway. Everything that moves away from micro-managing single models is a positive development.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
So with the lily brain things and the drone snow being tokens they're leaning into the visual game aids thing more.

It makes a lot of sense, remembering all the stuff was a huge mental load, and in cases like Drones, or Ammo/Oiler grots, some Inquisition Henchmen etc. the body was not that important anyway and it was more or less just a carrier for an ability anyway. Everything that moves away from micro-managing single models is a positive development.

yeah, those type of rules are much better when the scale of the game is smaller

 Nevelon wrote:
GW has moved on.

But they haven't though, not in any consistent manner. Some weapons have been consolidated, some weapons have been consolidated within units that still have tons of different options, and others have no consolidation at all.

I've been saying for years that the only consistent thing about GW is their inconsistency, and it remains true with 10th.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/19/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-tau-empire-2/

Ooh look! Tau! Shiny!

Breton wrote:

On the flipside, the OC numbers look like they might still be too low - it loses to 5 Cadian Shock Troops. Armiger OC should (probably) be floating around somewhere around 20 at that point they're tying against 10 of What-Used-To-Be-Troops-with-OC2 each

No, that would be horrible.
We are no longer in the land of objective secured, where if you put half millimiter of your troop on a point you make all those terminators controlling it very sad.
You now have to count the actual models of the unit on the point.
A troop has 20 OC only if all 10 models of it are on the point.
An armiger gets its full OC by simply putting a toe near the objective.

Given this very important difference, I believe that OC 8 (4 models of troop on the point) is actually fairly reasonable.

Not that I play Tau (just against them); but does anybody else feel like Tau got shafted with this Guided/Unguided army rule?

If I'm reading it correct it's like it almost always penalizes them to split-fire.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Not that I play Tau (just against them); but does anybody else feel like Tau got shafted with this Guided/Unguided army rule?

Not really in my opinion, but it does disincentivize big crisis units since split fire is a bad idea. But you no longer need to shoot with something else first or manage tokens.

Innately ignoring cover is useful and +1BS is capable of stacking with Heavy.

Also it frees up the need for markerlights if you want since any unit can 'buddy' - just without ignore cover.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Not that I play Tau (just against them); but does anybody else feel like Tau got shafted with this Guided/Unguided army rule?

Yes. They effectively have to horse trade which half of their army gets effective shooting from turn to turn.
If they're guided and stationary, they can be amazing. Otherwise they're just ok.

Its notable that MSU spam to bolster your shooting will really help initially, but as you lose units, your shooting effectiveness goes down. You can even get stuck in situations where your big guns have to move and be unguided to shoot at worthwhile targets.

If I'm reading it correct it's like it almost always penalizes them to split-fire.

For the guided units, yeah. Secondary targets degrades to ork level shooting. Its basically amounts to 'just don't.' (Except with flamers)
That turn's designated observers are equally mediocre against everything.

Kroot are way more useful in the system, though it will be kind of funny to have kroot hounds calling out targets.

It promotes a more even army structure over big globs of battlesuits.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
it will be kind of funny to have kroot hounds calling out targets.

No. Re-read the simplified but not simple preview.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Kroot are way more useful in the system, though it will be kind of funny to have kroot hounds calling out targets.

Assuming they don't have special rules saying they can't do that. Going by the fluff, only the vespid should be able to, and only because their squad leaders get the fancy hat (which links them into the tau command channels).

Edit: yeah, I think EightFoldPath is correct. Kroothounds can't guide, because having no guns, they're never eligible to shoot.

It promotes a more even army structure over big globs of battlesuits.

In a vacuum where everything but the rules we've seen are the same as now, sure.
But I suspect there are unintended consequences that lead to very wonky army optimization.

Even if you are correct, I don't want to be the one telling people with big battlesuit armies that they're playing it wrong, and half their units need to be worse so the rest of the army can shine a little brighter.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
it will be kind of funny to have kroot hounds calling out targets.

No. Re-read the simplified but not simple preview.

Oh, right. They need to be able to shoot. Ah well. At least regular kroot ( unless they have a rule exception ).

Voss wrote:
In a vacuum where everything but the rules we've seen are the same as now, sure.
But I suspect there are unintended consequences that lead to very wonky army optimization.

Even if you are correct, I don't want to be the one telling people with big battlesuit armies that they're playing it wrong, and half their units need to be worse so the rest of the army can shine a little brighter.

Oh definitely way too early to tell. Just a musing of a possibility. It'd be nice to see more 'combined arms' from Tau.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
it will be kind of funny to have kroot hounds calling out targets.

No. Re-read the simplified but not simple preview.

Units without ranged weapons are eligible to shoot as long as they didn't fall back or advance.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Not that I play Tau (just against them); but does anybody else feel like Tau got shafted with this Guided/Unguided army rule?

If I'm reading it correct it's like it almost always penalizes them to split-fire.

I don't think it is as weak as I first thought when reading it. And after adjusting army lists to fit the rule, Tau players may find it is quite strong. The Hammerhead Railgun and the Stormsurge Pulse Blast Cannon can both hit targets on 2s under these new rules while ignoring cover, that sounds ok. Both The Greater Good and Kauyon have no range restrictions at all in their rules, that is significant once you start playing on a table.

A lot will depend on points, and what happens with:
- Are Commanders Leaders or Lone Operatives?
- If they are Leaders do they only attach to Crisis suits?
- Can everyone who can take a markerlight currently take one?
- Can everyone who can take a marker drone currently take one?
- I'm assuming Strike, Breacher and Pathfinder squads remain at min 10, but if they went down to min 5 again this would add more spice.
- I'm also assuming drone squads don't exist otherwise you'd have some drones as tokens and some as models on the same table.

And one way to think of it is a Tau army might want to have 4 x 350 point death star units and 8 x 75 point trash units (with guns of some kind). The job of the death stars will be to DELETE one target per turn. A big knight/super heavy tank/greater daemon. A land raider with death star 1 followed by the Terminators inside with death star 2.

You'll probably want your Guided (BS3) death stars to be a mix of anti-tank and anti-elite while your Observer/Nothing (BS4) trash bring all the anti-horde. So you would build accordingly. A Crisis squad wouldn't want Burst/CIB/Fusion it would probably want CIB/Plasma/Fusion for killing a variety of elite targets or double Plasma or Fusion with the other mixed in for killing tanks. if Cyclic Ion Blasters get the Hazardous rule they probably get dropped anyway on Crisis squads.

If for some reason you desparately want to split fire a death star, then your choice is Guided (BS3/BS5) or Observer/Nothing (BS4). Depending on if you are 50/50 split firing or say 70/30 then the choice makes itself to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
it will be kind of funny to have kroot hounds calling out targets.

No. Re-read the simplified but not simple preview.

Units without ranged weapons are eligible to shoot as long as they didn't fall back or advance.

Yes, a very good point, the definition of eligible to shoot seems to have changed from 9th to 10th. Observer Kroot Hounds back on the menu it seems.

Also, as far as I can tell being in engagement range doesn't have any impact on being eligible to shoot, being Guided or an Observer.

Pointer hunting hounds are a thing IRL..

EightFoldPath wrote:

Yes, a very good point, the definition of eligible to shoot seems to have changed from 9th to 10th. Observer Kroot Hounds back on the menu it seems.

Also, as far as I can tell being in engagement range doesn't have any impact on being eligible to shoot, being Guided or an Observer.

Only vehicles, monsters and models with pistols are eligibile to shoot in ER.

Spoletta wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:

Yes, a very good point, the definition of eligible to shoot seems to have changed from 9th to 10th. Observer Kroot Hounds back on the menu it seems.

Also, as far as I can tell being in engagement range doesn't have any impact on being eligible to shoot, being Guided or an Observer.

Only vehicles, monsters and models with pistols are eligibile to shoot in ER.

Battlesuits were also eligible to do so in 9th, hoping they keep that in.

Also hoping they try to reduce the Tau archetype of "must be terrible at melee". Not asking for excellent CC units, but a bit of a boost so they could hold their own against Guard for example, would be helpful

Spoletta wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:

Yes, a very good point, the definition of eligible to shoot seems to have changed from 9th to 10th. Observer Kroot Hounds back on the menu it seems.

Also, as far as I can tell being in engagement range doesn't have any impact on being eligible to shoot, being Guided or an Observer.

Only vehicles, monsters and models with pistols are eligibile to shoot in ER.

Right again! I accept some blame, but I am also blaming that on the formatting of their rules. Why start the Shooting Phase rules with an explanation of what an eligible to shoot unit is with two conditions that mustn't apply, then add a third condition to what isn't eligible on the next page in another section!

EightFoldPath wrote:
Right again! I accept some blame, but I am also blaming that on the formatting of their rules. Why start the Shooting Phase rules with an explanation of what an eligible to shoot unit is with two conditions that mustn't apply, then add a third condition to what isn't eligible on the next page in another section!

It makes sense to be there as it only comes up when a unit is engaged in melee. Hence the rule is in that section.

I can't believe all this whining about the new For the Greater Good Rule. Unless you routinely brought 3 markerlights per unit in your army, you were not able to get the BS bonus for all your units. Now half your units (even more if you bring Pathfinders) can get improved BS and Ignores Cover while the other half fire as normal. Nothing bad here and we avoid all the laborious Actions and Hit rolls of prior editions. Just declare Guided Unit, Observer Unit, and Spotted Unit then get on with the dakka.

I quite like the FtGG rule, seems like a clever way to encourage list diversity now that there is no FOC.

I don't much care for the drones only counting as markers, but would need to see it in practice to really now if I like it or not.

I like the Strategem previewed though, seems very characterful for a unit of fire warriors to escape into their transport when charged.

I can imagine a devilsfish advancing on the enemy, the fire warriors disembark and open fire, and when counter-charged they fall back into the transport. Seems to be exactly how I imagine Tau would fight and something the rules have always struggled to represent.

I'll be curious to see how they do crisis suits, and if they get some form of JSJ back, especially since we've already seen reaction moves are a thing (Termagants).

Aash wrote:
I can imagine a devilsfish advancing on the enemy, the fire warriors disembark and open fire, and when counter-charged they fall back into the transport. Seems to be exactly how I imagine Tau would fight and something the rules have always struggled to represent.

I'll be curious to see how they do crisis suits, and if they get some form of JSJ back, especially since we've already seen reaction moves are a thing (Termagants).

Works great with the transport update, too. Fly up, hop out and both those units are observers.

Given elves playing 2CP for their JSJ I can't imagine it will come standard.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aash wrote:
I can imagine a devilsfish advancing on the enemy, the fire warriors disembark and open fire, and when counter-charged they fall back into the transport. Seems to be exactly how I imagine Tau would fight and something the rules have always struggled to represent.

I'll be curious to see how they do crisis suits, and if they get some form of JSJ back, especially since we've already seen reaction moves are a thing (Termagants).

Works great with the transport update, too. Fly up, hop out and both those units are observers.

Given elves playing 2CP for their JSJ I can't imagine it will come standard.

This ^

Or the transport acts as the Observer to the unit that disembarked.

Spoletta wrote:

Breton wrote:

On the flipside, the OC numbers look like they might still be too low - it loses to 5 Cadian Shock Troops. Armiger OC should (probably) be floating around somewhere around 20 at that point they're tying against 10 of What-Used-To-Be-Troops-with-OC2 each

No, that would be horrible.
We are no longer in the land of objective secured, where if you put half millimiter of your troop on a point you make all those terminators controlling it very sad.
You now have to count the actual models of the unit on the point.
A troop has 20 OC only if all 10 models of it are on the point.
An armiger gets its full OC by simply putting a toe near the objective.

Given this very important difference, I believe that OC 8 (4 models of troop on the point) is actually fairly reasonable.

We still don't have BLAST templates back so (usually) no reason not to stack up. Plus the infantry player can move more models in, the Armiger doesn't get more OC for moving the other toe into range. OC should probably be balanced from at least two different directions - Ground Up (i.e. the OC specialist units previously known or thought of as "Troops" get X per model type stuff) and top-down (i.e. an entire 2K point army should end up with about YZ OC in total)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Right again! I accept some blame, but I am also blaming that on the formatting of their rules. Why start the Shooting Phase rules with an explanation of what an eligible to shoot unit is with two conditions that mustn't apply, then add a third condition to what isn't eligible on the next page in another section!

It makes sense to be there as it only comes up when a unit is engaged in melee. Hence the rule is in that section.

This may be a case where that part of the rule should have been printed in both sections.

 alextroy wrote:
I can't believe all this whining about the new For the Greater Good Rule. Unless you routinely brought 3 markerlights per unit in your army, you were not able to get the BS bonus for all your units. Now half your units (even more if you bring Pathfinders) can get improved BS and Ignores Cover while the other half fire as normal. Nothing bad here and we avoid all the laborious Actions and Hit rolls of prior editions. Just declare Guided Unit, Observer Unit, and Spotted Unit then get on with the dakka.

That was my take on it too. If nothing else, I feel like having a bunch of cheap spotters paired with more killy guided units is a more fluffy take than however massed markerlights were supposed to work. On paper, I like it. I also really like the fluffy strat.

I feel a little weird about the new drone rules. It's probably a better approach on the whole, but it does feel like shield drones kind of got shafted. The Kau'yon detachment rule is the part I'm the most iffy about, only because "kill things better" rules are kind of a red flag for me at this point. But in theory it only kicks in once you've lost a big chunk of your army and your opponent has had opportunities to close the gap with you, so I'm probably being overly critical.

I'm thinking Tau are going to want to use lots of Strategic Reserves and Deep Striking units. Put enough on the board to draw your opponent into the trap, then bring the Reserves in on Turn 3 for a Kauyon Strike. Bring lots of high volume attacks to maximize the impact of Sustained Fire 2 for Guided units.

 alextroy wrote:
I'm thinking Tau are going to want to use lots of Strategic Reserves and Deep Striking units. Put enough on the board to draw your opponent into the trap, then bring the Reserves in on Turn 3 for a Kauyon Strike. Bring lots of high volume attacks to maximize the impact of Sustained Fire 2 for Guided units.

There's always the possibility that they just kill you the first two turns and then kill you SUPER HARD on turn 3.

Two units of pathfinders or fire warriors in devilfish whizz up the board, disembark, and now you have 4 observer units (potentially on objectives, and they're screening) for your crisis suits, broadsides, hammerheads, etc.

Looks pretty solid to me on paper.

I can see Crisis suits still holding on to flamers to ignore the penalty for splitting fire.

 alextroy wrote:
I can't believe all this whining about the new For the Greater Good Rule. Unless you routinely brought 3 markerlights per unit in your army, you were not able to get the BS bonus for all your units. Now half your units (even more if you bring Pathfinders) can get improved BS and Ignores Cover while the other half fire as normal. Nothing bad here and we avoid all the laborious Actions and Hit rolls of prior editions. Just declare Guided Unit, Observer Unit, and Spotted Unit then get on with the dakka.

To be honest it is just the Militarium Orders with a sidegrade of improved accessibility (no need for Officers) for worsened flexibility (only +1 BS no other tricks) and the added caveat that you get a random penalty if you gak it up. All in a package of a needlessly complicated rule that is really airy despite how wordy it is, so a Pathfinder unit can spot for a Hammerhead (and another unit too) from the other side of the table while brawling Angron because they have a pistol in the squad (the comms exchange must be hilarious)... It just comes off as a huge WTF rather than something exciting like the Space Marines nuking a unit per turn with infinite re-rolls.

Shas'O ER'JAK wrote:
just kill you the first two turns and then kill you SUPER HARD on turn 3.

Welcome comrade.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Two units of pathfinders or fire warriors in devilfish whizz up the board, disembark, and now you have 4 observer units (potentially on objectives, and they're screening) for your crisis suits, broadsides, hammerheads, etc.

Looks pretty solid to me on paper.

I can see Crisis suits still holding on to flamers to ignore the penalty for splitting fire.

Agree with the sentiment and that works, but to optimise I would be looking for even cheaper units than that. Using 9th points, a Devilfish is 95 and Breachers 85. I'm looking at Kroot Hounds (24), Krootox Riders (25), Stealth suits (75), Pathfinders (90 but do double duty and I'll be looking for any other units that can double up), Piranhas (60), Vespid (60).

I think they'll feel quite elven in some ways with so many little trash units Observing and briefly holding objectives for points and standing awkwardly to block enemy movement.

I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but if any Commanders are Lone Operatives and they stay BS2, then they make perfect Observers unless they need the Ignores Cover, as they don't need the BS boost part of being Guided.

The complete lack of range on the ability is really interesting to me as well. Against a towering foe like a Knight (perhaps one armed with an 18" range insta death gun) you could have your Observer units in the far corners of the board getting true LOS visibility to the Knight, where they wouldn't have been able to shoot anyway.

I'm also waiting to see if Riptide/Broadside main guns have the HEAVY keyword. I think that stands for the kind of breathing I will be doing if they do.

EightFoldPath wrote:


The complete lack of range on the ability is really interesting to me as well. Against a towering foe like a Knight (perhaps one armed with an 18" range insta death gun) you could have your Observer units in the far corners of the board getting true LOS visibility to the Knight,

I'd half expect that to be an early FAQ if you are right - something to do with eligible targets.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Pathfinders (90 but do double duty and I'll be looking for any other units that can double up),

I would expect Tetras to double up, and possibly Firesight Marksmen.